[#20675] RCR: non-bang equivalent to []= — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...>

Hi,

49 messages 2001/09/01
[#20774] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []= — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...> 2001/09/03

I wrote:

[#20778] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []= — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/03

--- Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com> wrote:

[#20715] oreilly buch von matz - website online — markus jais <info@...>

hi

43 messages 2001/09/02
[#20717] Re: OReilly Ruby book has snail on cover — ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) 2001/09/02

Actually, thanks for posting it here. I was trying to search OReilly's

[#20922] Re: OReilly Ruby book has snail on cover — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/05

On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Phil Tomson wrote:

[#20768] Minor cgi.rb question — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

I don't have much experience with

25 messages 2001/09/03

[#20770] Calling member methods from C++ — jglueck@... (Bernhard Glk)

Some quetsions have been solved for me, but my message system does not

12 messages 2001/09/03

[#20976] destructor — Frank Sonnemans <ruby@...>

Does Ruby have a destructor as in C++?

25 messages 2001/09/07

[#21218] Ruby objects <-> XML: anyone working on this? — senderista@... (Tobin Baker)

Are there any Ruby analogs of these two Python modules (xml_pickle,

13 messages 2001/09/15

[#21296] nested require files need path internally — Bob Gustafson <bobgus@...>

Version: 1.64

29 messages 2001/09/18
[#21298] Re: nested require files need path internally — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2001/09/18

Hello --

[#21302] Re: nested require files need path internally — Bob Gustafson <bobgus@...> 2001/09/18

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, David Alan Black wrote:

[#21303] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/18

Hi,

[#21306] Re: nested require files need path internally — Lars Christensen <larsch@...> 2001/09/18

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#21307] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/18

Hi,

[#21331] Re: nested require files need path internally — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/18

> The big difference is C++ search done in compile time, Ruby search

[#21340] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/18

Hi,

[#21353] Re: nested require files need path internally — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/18

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#21366] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/19

Hi,

[#21368] Re: nested require files need path internally — "Julian Fitzell" <julian-ml@...4.com> 2001/09/19

On 19/09/2001 at 10:12 AM matz@ruby-lang.org wrote:

[#21376] Re: nested require files need path internally — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/09/19

Hi,

[#21406] Re: nested require files need path internally — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/09/19

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#21315] Suggestions for new CGI lib — anders@... (Anders Johannsen)

From the comp.lang.ruby thread "Minor cgi.rb question" (2001-09-03), I

21 messages 2001/09/18

[#21413] Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Brian Marick <marick@...>

I fell in love with Lisp in the early 80's. Back then, I read a book called

36 messages 2001/09/19
[#21420] Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@...> 2001/09/20

On 20 Sep 2001 06:19:44 +0900, Brian Marick wrote:

[#21479] Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/21

--- Christopher Sawtell <csawtell@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

[#21491] SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — "Mikkel Damsgaard" <mikkel_damsgaard@...> 2001/09/21

[#21494] Re: SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/21

--- Mikkel Damsgaard <mikkel_damsgaard@mailme.dk> wrote:

[#21510] Re: SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Todd Gillespie <toddg@...> 2001/09/22

On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Kevin Smith wrote:

[#21514] Re: SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...> 2001/09/22

--- Todd Gillespie <toddg@mail.ma.utexas.edu> wrote:

[#21535] irb — Fabio <fabio.spelta@...>

Hello. :) I'm new here, and I have not found an archive of the previous

15 messages 2001/09/22

[#21616] opening a named pipe? — "Avdi B. Grimm" <avdi@...>

I'm having trouble reading from a named pipe in linux. basicly, I'm

12 messages 2001/09/24

[#21685] manipulating "immutable" objects such as Fixnum from within callbacks & al... — Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@...>

Hello,

15 messages 2001/09/25

[#21798] Ruby internal (guide to the source) — "Benoit Cerrina" <benoit.cerrina@...>

Hi,

22 messages 2001/09/28

[ruby-talk:21067] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []=

From: "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
Date: 2001-09-11 12:19:02 UTC
List: ruby-talk #21067
Hi,

"Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>
> > In message "[ruby-talk:20834] Re: RCR: non-bang equivalent to []="
> >     on 01/09/04, "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net> writes:
> >
> > |> > I'd like to have bang and non-bang versions of each and every
method.
> > |> > The names should just differ in the !, like collect and collect!
> > |
> > |IIRC from previous discussions, isn't this precisely the convention
that
> > |Scheme uses? (IIRC, this is where Matz got the idea for his particular
> > |variation.)
> >
> > It is the origin of the bang name idea, but in fact they are
> > different.  As Hal pointed out, Scheme's bang is the mark for
> > self-modifying functions, on the other hand, Ruby's bang is the mark
> > for "more dangerous alternative; handle with care".
>
> Hmm, I made some related comments, though I never mentioned
> Scheme (which I don't know). Someone else mentioned Scheme.

Me.

By the way, that reminds me of another parenthetical question that I forgot
to ask. Does anyone know if Scheme users generally unhappy with the Scheme
convention for using ! on all destructive methods?

> It was Ralph Waldo Emerson who said, "A foolish consistency is the
> hobgoblin of little minds." To me, a unilateral bang-notation falls under
> the heading of a foolish consistency.
[...]
> If we embraced the other philosophy fully,

But why push it to the point of obvious foolishness? Isn't that a little
foolish? :-)

It's OK to strenuously disagree, but let's fight fair, as it were. (After
all, your argument could be stretched beyond reason into promoting a move
toward more Python-like syntax. :-)

The original request was for _moderate_ consistency in the sense of a
convention that happens to better reflect _some_ people's natural semantic
intuitions (and thereby get rid of what for them is a nagging pointless
ambiguity).

> I think we would end up
> looking more like Perl, where array names are marked with a special

Or we would end up, heavens forbid!, where global, class, and instance
variable names are marked with a special.... :-)

FWIW, IIRC, I think Perl6 is changing the Perl5 convention to a more
intuitive (again, IMO) sort of consistency.

Conrad




In This Thread

Prev Next