[#1649] Re: New Ruby projects — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
[#1672] Re: Ruby 1.4 stable manual bug? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
[#1673] Re: Possible problem with ext/socket in 1.5.2 — itojun@...
[#1694] Conventions for our Ruby book — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#1715] Install postgresql support — Ikhlasul Amal <amal@...>
Hi all,
Hi,
[#1786] Is this a bug? — Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@...>
(mailed & posted)
[#1814] Objects nested sometimes. — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
I am attemptiong to write a package which consists of a workspace
[#1816] Ruby 1.5.3 under Tru64 (Alpha)? — Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@...>
Hi all,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto writes:
Hi,
Hi,
[#1834] enum examples? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Has anyone any examplse of using the Enumerable module? I've had a
[#1844] Minor irritation, can't figure out how to patch it though! — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
I was considering how difficult it would be to patch Ruby to accept
[#1889] [ruby-1.5.3] require / SAFE — ts <decoux@...>
[#1896] Ruby Syntax similar to other languages? — "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@...>
[#1900] Enumerations and all that. — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Thank you to the people who responded to my questions about Enumerated
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
On 16 Mar 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#1929] Re: Class Variables — "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@...>
| "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@cuna.com> writes:
[#1942] no Fixnum#new ? — Quinn Dunkan <quinn@...>
Ok, I can add methods to a built-in class well enough (yes I know about succ,
[#1981] Time::at — "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@...>
or whatever the right syntax is :-)
[#1989] English Ruby/Gtk Tutorial? — schneik@...
Hi,
SugHimsi(%HeIsSaidJustToLoseHisPatienceOnThisSubject;-).
[#2022] rb_global_entry — ts <decoux@...>
[#2036] Anonymous and Singleton Classes — B_DAVISON <Bob.Davison@...>
I am a Ruby newbie and having some problems getting my mind around certain
[#2069] Ruby/GTK+ question about imlib --> gdk-pixbug — schneik@...
[#2073] Re: eval.rb fails — "Dat Nguyen" <thucdat@...>
The doc is fine, this happens only if you try to execute 'until' block
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Dat Nguyen wrote:
[#2084] Scope violated by import via 'require'? — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
Hi,
[#2104] ARGF or $< — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Has anyone any examples of how to use ARGF or $< as I cannot find much
Hi.
[#2165] Ruby strict mode and stand-alone executables. — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
Some people want Ruby to have a strict compile mode.
[#2203] Re: parse bug in 1.5 — schneik@...
[#2212] Re: Ruby/Glade usage questions. — ts <decoux@...>
>>>>> "m" == mrilu <mrilu@ale.cx> writes:
[#2241] setter() for local variables — ts <decoux@...>
[#2256] Multiple assignment of pattern match results. — schneik@...
[#2267] Re: Ruby and Eiffel — h.fulton@...
[#2309] Question about attribute writers — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[ruby-talk:02203] Re: parse bug in 1.5
Quinn Dunkan wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> >
> > |Ruby 1.5 seems to have a problem when parsing methods called
> > |with a {...} block if there is space before the opening paren.
> >
> > It's not a bug. It is a bad feature which I'm thinking about
> > improvement, and not yet come to conclusion. ;-)
> >
> > In 1.4.x, identifiers followed by parenthesises is considered as
> > method invocation. In 1.5.x, if whitespaces comes between identifiers
> > and parenthesises, parenthesises are considered as expression
> > grouping, to enable:
> >
> > point.move (1+3)*2, 5
>
> This slipperly path looks like one followed by a certain other language.
Hmm, must be the overly context-dependent one.
> The fact that ruby has variadic functions and optional parens causes some
> unpleasant ambiguities, but I'd rather ruby raise a SyntaxError when it
> doesn't know what you mean, rather than "cleverly" trying to figure it
out.
Good diagnosis. I also want to vote for something like this behavior. I
would also like the error message to mention the 2 (or 3) possibilities it
was trying to distinguish among rather than just giving a parse error.
(I would also vote for doing away with optional parens, although this may
be unpopular with many people or it may cause backwards compatibility
problems. I prefer this option on the principle of least surprise grounds.)
> Now *I* have to figure out what ruby is going to figure out based on what
it
> thinks I'm thinking... I just wanna write code, not play mind games with
a
> compiler!
Well put.
I think this sort of thing somehow goes against the spirit of OO
programming in a way that I can't think how to succinctly specify at the
moment.
> For me at least, ruby's syntax is hovering near the edge of "too
complicated".
> Please don't push it over :)
For me too, at least in this area. I think this is where Larry ran into the
design Wall.
I think Ruby syntax should strive to be "intuitively obvious" in the sense
that it is doesn't readily invite mistakes and misinterpretation--even if
that means having to write a few more characters.
Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)