[#84664] CGI uses file size to distinguish between regular values and files — David Heinemeier Hansson <david@...>

I've been having a ton of problems handling file uploads with CGI.rb

23 messages 2003/11/02
[#84674] Re: CGI uses file size to distinguish between regular values and files — Simon Kitching <simon@...> 2003/11/03

Hi David,

[#84676] Re: CGI uses file size to distinguish between regular values and files — Dmitry Borodaenko <d.borodaenko@...> 2003/11/03

On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:29:08PM +0900, Simon Kitching wrote:

[#84678] Re: CGI uses file size to distinguish between regular values and files — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/11/03

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 20:12:06 +0900, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:

[#84692] Re: CGI uses file size to distinguish between regular values and files — Dmitry Borodaenko <d.borodaenko@...> 2003/11/03

On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:40:48PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#84700] Re: CGI uses file size to distinguish between regular values and files — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/11/03

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 04:37:19 +0900, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:

[#84701] Re: CGI uses file size to distinguish between regular values and files — Simon Kitching <simon@...> 2003/11/03

On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 10:29, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#84703] Re: CGI uses file size to distinguish between regular values and files — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/11/03

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 06:51:43 +0900, Simon Kitching wrote:

[#84708] Re: CGI uses file size to distinguish between regular values and files — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/04

Hi,

[#84735] Managing metadata about attribute types — Simon Kitching <simon@...>

Hi,

52 messages 2003/11/05
[#84740] Re: Managing metadata about attribute types — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/11/05

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:38:16 +0900, Simon Kitching wrote:

[#84741] Re: Managing metadata about attribute types — Simon Kitching <simon@...> 2003/11/05

On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 17:09, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#84762] Re: Managing metadata about attribute types — Simon Kitching <simon@...> 2003/11/06

What a vigorous discussion I seem to have triggered :-)

[#84770] Re: Managing metadata about attribute types — dblack@... 2003/11/06

Hi --

[#84780] Re: Managing metadata about attribute types — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/11/06

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:45:39 +0900

[#84858] Re: Managing metadata about attribute types — "John W. Long" <ng@...> 2003/11/08

Ryan,

[#84847] Long-running daemon acquiring giant memory footprint — Jason DiCioccio <jd@...>

I have written a long-running daemon in ruby to handle dynamic DNS updates.

16 messages 2003/11/07

[#84900] Antwort: Re: Power of Interpreted Languages — Robert.Koepferl@...

25 messages 2003/11/10
[#84914] Re: Antwort: Re: Power of Interpreted Languages — Aredridel <aredridel@...> 2003/11/10

> But, would you implement a game with ruby?

[#84917] Re: Antwort: Re: Power of Interpreted Languages — Gregory Millam <walker@...> 2003/11/10

Received: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:21:15 +0900

[#84920] Re: Antwort: Re: Power of Interpreted Languages — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/10

On Monday 10 November 2003 09:28 am, Gregory Millam wrote:

[#84921] Ruby/Tk Some Basic Questions — "Zach Dennis" <zdennis@...> 2003/11/10

Hi,

[#84930] Re: Ruby/Tk Some Basic Questions — Hidetoshi NAGAI <nagai@...> 2003/11/11

Hi,

[#85097] substring: to the end of the string — KONTRA Gergely <kgergely@...>

Hi!

19 messages 2003/11/14

[#85104] Microsoft's C/C++ compiler freely available — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...>

Thought this might be interesting to those stuck on win32...

23 messages 2003/11/15
[#85106] Re: Microsoft's C/C++ compiler freely available — Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...> 2003/11/15

Question:

[#85178] overload method in module_eval, how? — Simon Strandgaard <qj5nd7l02@...>

I want to overload a testcase method with debug-enabling wrapper.

13 messages 2003/11/17

[#85218] Access ftp-server through proxy — Kristian Sensen <ks@...>

14 messages 2003/11/17

[#85330] Yet Another Rite Thought: method combination — gabriele renzi <surrender_it@...1.vip.ukl.yahoo.com>

I just looked at matz' slides and I don't have a clear understanding

28 messages 2003/11/17

[#85421] Again, Rite explanation needed (keyword args and new hash syntax) — gabriele renzi <surrender_it@...1.vip.ukl.yahoo.com>

Hi gurus and nubys,

13 messages 2003/11/18

[#85488] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) )<Pine.LNX.4.44.0311171402340.1133-100000@ool-435 5dfae.dyn.optonline.net> — "Weirich, James" <James.Weirich@...>

David Black (dblack@wobblini.net) wrote:

121 messages 2003/11/18
[#85492] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) )<Pine.LNX.4.44.0311171402340.1133-100000@ool-435 5dfae.dyn.optonline.net> — Simon Kitching <simon@...> 2003/11/18

On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 10:30, Weirich, James wrote:

[#85499] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) )<Pine.LNX.4.44.0311171402340.1133-100000@ool-435 5dfae.dyn.optonline.net> — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/18

On Tuesday 18 November 2003 02:06 pm, Simon Kitching wrote:

[#85523] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/11/19

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:08:25 +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:

[#85582] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/19

On Tuesday 18 November 2003 10:30 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#85609] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/11/19

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:43:31 +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:

[#85619] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/19

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 12:04 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#85656] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/11/19

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 05:48:37 +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:

[#85664] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/19

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 03:00 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#85684] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/11/20

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:19:08 +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:

[#85688] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — Simon Kitching <simon@...> 2003/11/20

On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 14:06, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#85734] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — Thien Vuong <tvuong@...> 2003/11/20

[#85748] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/11/20

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:52:17 +0900, Thien Vuong wrote:

[#85854] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/20

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 10:47 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#85858] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — dblack@... 2003/11/20

Hi --

[#85895] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/20

Hi,

[#85906] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — Chad Fowler <chad@...> 2003/11/20

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#85938] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/21

Hi,

[#85940] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/21

On Thursday 20 November 2003 06:47 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#85944] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/21

Hi,

[#85951] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/21

On Thursday 20 November 2003 07:58 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#85970] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/21

Hi,

[#85997] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/21

On Friday 21 November 2003 02:20 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#86046] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/21

Hi,

[#86071] Method wrapper question (was "stereotyping (was ...)) — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2003/11/22

On Saturday, November 22, 2003, 10:53:39 AM, Yukihiro wrote:

[#86085] Re: Method wrapper question (was "stereotyping (was ...)) — ts <decoux@...> 2003/11/22

>>>>> "G" == Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:

[#86090] Re: Method wrapper question (was "stereotyping (was ...)) — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2003/11/22

On Saturday, November 22, 2003, 11:47:50 PM, ts wrote:

[#86091] Re: Method wrapper question (was "stereotyping (was ...)) — ts <decoux@...> 2003/11/22

>>>>> "G" == Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:

[#86092] Re: Method wrapper question (was "stereotyping (was ...)) — "Christoph" <chr_mail@...> 2003/11/22

ts wrote:

[#86093] Re: Method wrapper question (was "stereotyping (was ...)) — ts <decoux@...> 2003/11/22

>>>>> "C" == Christoph <chr_mail@gmx.net> writes:

[#86095] Re: Method wrapper question (was "stereotyping (was ...)) — "Christoph" <chr_mail@...> 2003/11/22

ts wrote:

[#85908] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/20

On Thursday 20 November 2003 02:40 pm, Chad Fowler wrote:

[#85590] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2003/11/19

Hi --

[#85597] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/19

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 10:33 am, David A. Black wrote:

[#85599] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/19

Hi,

[#85604] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/19

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 11:14 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#85503] String startswith/endswith in Ruby? — Dave Benjamin <ramen@...>

Hi all,

12 messages 2003/11/18

[#85518] Multi-dimensioned sparse array ? — Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@...>

Does anyone have an implementation of a multi-dimensioned sparse array?

14 messages 2003/11/19
[#85527] Re: Multi-dimensioned sparse array ? — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/11/19

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:21:19 +0900, Charles Hixson wrote:

[#85526] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) )<Pine.LNX.4.44.0311171402340.1133-100000@ool-4355dfae.dyn.optonline.net> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311181524130.2236-100000@ool-4355dfae.dyn.optonline.net> — Thien Vuong <tvuong@...>

54 messages 2003/11/19
[#85544] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) — dblack@... 2003/11/19

[Apologies to anyone whose threading is getting messed up by the

[#85583] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/19

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 03:55 am, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

[#85588] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2003/11/19

Hi --

[#85595] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/19

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 10:27 am, David A. Black wrote:

[#85598] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/19

Hi,

[#85601] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/19

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 11:05 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#85605] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) — Chad Fowler <chad@...> 2003/11/19

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Sean O'Dell wrote:

[#85612] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/19

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 11:46 am, Chad Fowler wrote:

[#85617] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) — Maik Schmidt <contact@...> 2003/11/19

Sean O'Dell wrote:

[#85629] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/19

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 12:42 pm, Maik Schmidt wrote:

[#85543] Re: $& write-protected? — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "S" == Simon Strandgaard <none> writes:

14 messages 2003/11/19

[#85547] x.f! RCR — Greg McIntyre <greg@...>

It bugs me that some methods have a ! on the end and some don't. It

20 messages 2003/11/19

[#85698] Re: "stereotyping" — Michael Campbell <michael_s_campbell@...>

Sean O'Dell wrote:

19 messages 2003/11/20
[#85701] Re: "stereotyping" — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...> 2003/11/20

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 07:01 pm, Michael Campbell wrote:

[#85704] Re: "stereotyping" — Michael campbell <michael_s_campbell@...> 2003/11/20

Sean O'Dell wrote:

[#85718] Re: "stereotyping" — Clifford Heath <cjh_nospam@...> 2003/11/20

Michael campbell wrote:

[#85757] Re: "stereotyping" — Julian Fitzell <julian@...4.com> 2003/11/20

Clifford Heath wrote:

[#85913] Re: "stereotyping" — Clifford Heath <cjh_nospam@...> 2003/11/20

Julian Fitzell wrote:

[#85713] Re: [ANN] win32-clipboard 0.1.0 — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>

Oops - forgot the link:

14 messages 2003/11/20

[#85766] learning the "Ruby way" — mark.wirdnam@... (Mark Wirdnam)

**Hobby-programmer alarm**

24 messages 2003/11/20
[#85863] Re: learning the "Ruby way" — Chad Fowler <chad@...> 2003/11/20

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Mark Wirdnam wrote:

[#85821] iterator 0.1 — Simon Strandgaard <qj5nd7l02@...>

homepage:

22 messages 2003/11/20

[#85870] Re: "stereotyping" — Michael Campbell <michael_s_campbell@...>

Sean O'Dell wrote:

17 messages 2003/11/20

[#85886] Partial Euphoric Type Checking — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>

Greetings all Type Checkers!

16 messages 2003/11/20
[#85948] Re: Partial Euphoric Type Checking (now Ducked!) — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/21

quack! quack! I added duck typing capability to my euphoric type checking

[#85952] Re: Partial Euphoric Type Checking (Super Duck!?) — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/21

Now some for some rally crazy cross thought. First a complete interface

[#85957] Re: Partial Euphoric Type Checking (Super Duck!?) — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/21

for some cross rally some thought crazy. ( read: i need a type system for my

[#85981] Re: Partial Euphoric Type Checking (Super Duck!?) — Chris Morris <chrismo@...> 2003/11/21

> you see we have a problem here. it doesn't matter what methods are

[#85987] Re: Partial Euphoric Type Checking (Super Duck!?) — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/11/21

> > you see we have a problem here. it doesn't matter what methods are

[#85888] New Type Checking System Idea — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...>

Taking comments into consideration, a totally new approach strikes me

22 messages 2003/11/20

[#85947] RubyConf 2003 Presentations Posted — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>

In absolute record time (5 days compared to 3 months), rubyconf 2003

11 messages 2003/11/21

[#86007] Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) ) — "Weirich, James" <James.Weirich@...>

> This is a wonderful idea. Let me restate it to make sure I

13 messages 2003/11/21

[#86127] Ruby classes for MP3 de-/encoding — Dennis Oelkers <dennis@...>

Hello folks,

12 messages 2003/11/22

[#86183] "wrong argument type nil (expected String)" from Dir.chdir — Tim Kynerd <vxbrw58s02@...>

I'm running Ruby 1.6.8.

13 messages 2003/11/23

[#86202] Message "Insecure world writable dir ..." — Harry Ohlsen <harryo@...>

When File.popen() is passed an executable whose path contains a world writable directory, it produces a warning message.

19 messages 2003/11/24

[#86215] Library path relative to current .rb file — zoranlazarevic@... (Zoran Lazarevic)

One of the most irritating (missing) features of Ruby is inability to

12 messages 2003/11/24

[#86265] raise unless RUBY_VERSION[%r/^\s*\d+\.\d+/o].to_f >= 1.8 — "Ara.T.Howard" <ahoward@...>

25 messages 2003/11/24

[#86344] Re: Controlled block variables — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>

On Wednesday 26 November 2003 09:10 am, Guy Decoux wrote:

42 messages 2003/11/26
[#86369] Re: Controlled block variables — Dan Doel <djd15@...> 2003/11/26

I actually have wondered in the past why there isn't an #eval that takes

[#86390] Re: Controlled block variables — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/26

On Wednesday 26 November 2003 03:57 pm, Dan Doel wrote:

[#86346] Re: Controlled block variables — ts <decoux@...> 2003/11/26

>>>>> "T" == T Onoma <transami@runbox.com> writes:

[#86347] Re: Controlled block variables — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/26

On Wednesday 26 November 2003 09:56 am, ts wrote:

[#86360] turning a string into array of ASCII bytes — David Garamond <lists@...6.isreserved.com>

What is the shortest, most straightforward way (without temporary

17 messages 2003/11/26

[#86391] Method wrapping — Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>

I've come late into the thread on this, and I haven't read all

62 messages 2003/11/26
[#86445] Re: Method wrapping — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/26

Hi,

[#86457] Re: Method wrapping — Hal Fulton <hal9000@...> 2003/11/27

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#86462] Re: Method wrapping — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/27

Hi,

[#86470] Re: Method wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/27

On Thursday 27 November 2003 07:07 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#86493] Re: Method wrapping — "Christoph" <chr_mail@...> 2003/11/27

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#86498] Re: Method wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/11/27

> I have asked the same this question as well and I really wish

[#86508] Re: Method wrapping — "Christoph" <chr_mail@...> 2003/11/27

From: Peter wrote:

[#86512] Re: Method wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/11/27

> This sound all good and well however this does not change the

[#86550] pre/post question/idea — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hello --

21 messages 2003/11/28

[#86646] Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>

Its important that we clearly seperate the issue of "surface" syntax from the

54 messages 2003/11/28
[#86657] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/11/28

> Thoughts?

[#86692] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/29

On Saturday 29 November 2003 12:44 am, Peter wrote:

[#86707] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/11/29

> I originally had a small paragraph touching on this, but I took it out b/c I

[#86726] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/29

On Saturday 29 November 2003 04:26 pm, Peter wrote:

[#86734] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/11/30

> The join-points are the only thing required to facilitate all of this. So I

[#86747] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/30

On Sunday 30 November 2003 01:01 am, Peter wrote:

[#86794] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/11/30

> How would they know? ;-)

[#86812] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/30

On Sunday 30 November 2003 03:57 pm, Peter wrote:

[#86824] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/11/30

> > I like the proper separation, but why pre and post for extrinsic and def

[#86831] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/30

On Sunday 30 November 2003 09:39 pm, Peter wrote:

[#86835] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/11/30

> You're absolutely right. Hmm...Granted this is acting in accordance to an

[#86873] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/12/01

On Monday 01 December 2003 12:25 am, Peter wrote:

[#86911] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/12/01

> I was thinking about the terms. To really distinguish these two types of wraps

[#86943] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/12/02

On Monday 01 December 2003 06:58 pm, Peter wrote:

[#87024] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/12/02

> OK as in so-so, or OK as in yes? If just so-so we'll find something better. I

[#87034] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/12/02

Peter:

[#87068] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/12/03

[snip]

[#87242] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/12/04

On Wednesday 03 December 2003 03:21 am, Peter wrote:

[#87478] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/12/07

Here is an intereseting problem that I'm currently facing and which is related

[#87481] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/12/07

> As always, I may be over looking the obvious. But if anyone has a current

[#87491] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/12/08

On Sunday 07 December 2003 08:02 pm, Peter wrote:

[#87575] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/12/09

Hi Tom,

[#87609] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/12/09

On Tuesday 09 December 2003 01:05 am, Peter wrote:

[#87686] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/12/10

> QUICK SIDE NOTE: might be nice to have something for all those dang ends. How

[#87688] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/12/10

On Wednesday 10 December 2003 05:16 am, Peter wrote:

[#87713] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/12/10

> Mine too! But I was joking :) Well, half way. It would be nice to have a good

[#87731] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/12/10

On Wednesday 10 December 2003 05:55 pm, Peter wrote:

[#87747] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...> 2003/12/11

> Well, I thought of using the underscores to allow one to indent as needed to

[#87761] Re: Underpinnings of Method Wrapping — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/12/11

On Thursday 11 December 2003 04:04 am, Peter wrote:

[#86655] anything disappearing from Ruby for 2.0? — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

62 messages 2003/11/28
[#86710] Re: anything disappearing from Ruby for 2.0? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/29

Hi,

[#86737] Re: anything disappearing from Ruby for 2.0? — Michael Campbell <michael_s_campbell@...> 2003/11/30

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#86779] Re: anything disappearing from Ruby for 2.0? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/30

Hi,

[#86661] rdoc included in standard distribution? — Chad Fowler <chad@...>

I've seen various plans for this dating back more than a year. Is it

16 messages 2003/11/29

[#86669] Class-level readers and writers — Carl Youngblood <carl@...>

I've been working with the class attribute shortcuts that Hal introduced

36 messages 2003/11/29
[#86675] Re: Class-level readers and writers — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2003/11/29

Hi --

[#86722] Re: Class-level readers and writers — Carl Youngblood <carl@...> 2003/11/29

> (Just as a footnote, you can also use "normal" accessor shortcuts at

[#86723] Re: Class-level readers and writers — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2003/11/29

Hi --

[#86728] Re: Class-level readers and writers — "Christoph" <chr_mail@...> 2003/11/29

David A. Black wrote:

[#86752] Re: Class-level readers and writers — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/30

On Saturday 29 November 2003 10:59 pm, Christoph wrote:

[#86782] Re: Class-level readers and writers — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2003/11/30

Hello --

[#86801] Re: Class-level readers and writers — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/30

On Sunday 30 November 2003 12:11 pm, David A. Black wrote:

[#86807] Re: Class-level readers and writers — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2003/11/30

Hi --

[#86808] Re: Class-level readers and writers — ts <decoux@...> 2003/11/30

>>>>> "D" == David A Black <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:

[#86815] Re: Class-level readers and writers — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2003/11/30

Hi --

[#86673] New to ruby--trouble with initializing arrays — vanjac12@... (Van Jacques)

I am writing a practice program; the Game of Life. Naturally I am having troubles.

11 messages 2003/11/29

[#86784] Re: anything disappearing from Ruby for 2.0? — "Gavri Savio Fernandez" <Gavri_F@...>

> From: Chris Uppal [mailto:chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org]

21 messages 2003/11/30
[#86800] Re: anything disappearing from Ruby for 2.0? — "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@...> 2003/11/30

Gavri Savio Fernandez wrote:

Re: "stereotyping"

From: "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...>
Date: 2003-11-21 21:14:00 UTC
List: ruby-talk #86027
On Friday 21 November 2003 12:48 pm, Rasputin wrote:
> * Sean O'Dell <sean@celsoft.com> [1144 19:44]:
> > A: I don't agree that it helps you control your large team projects.  Can
> > you offer more evidence?
> >
> > Q: Okay. We have to look to code quite often in lieu of project
> > documentation, and normally we look to the description of classes, and
> > the declarations of function parameters to determine how to make calls
> > and to understand how classes are designed that are unfamiliar to some of
> > the programmers on the team.  Type checking would help us to know what
> > parameters are used by certain methods at-a-glance, which saves us from
> > having to spend time studying source code to figure things out.
>
> You're assuming the guy who wrote the library methods used this
> optional 'interface' extension. If he cant even be bothered to
> document his library, why would he do that?  Wouldnt a class
> need to know in advance that it would be passed to an interface-aware
> method?

Because this is far simpler, and once started, cannot lapse.  When he tests 
his code, if he forgot to update the interface description, he'll get errors 
that notify him.  You can be mostly assured that the interface description 
you see from a library is up-to-date, unlike documentation.

Convenience is a mighty strong catalyst for action.

> 	This seems to be using interface implementation to flag a class
> as suitable for use in a particular way. Thats just as much an agreed
> protocol between the method and the argument as a respond_to? approach,
> but respond_to? doesnt require such a fundamental change to the
> language (and thats what it would have to be, if it was really to be
> useful - I dont think an optional feature would please anyone).

The difference is: simply stating a class' purpose is easy.  You do it once 
and that's pretty much it.  As you develop, though, the interface changes.  
Keeping up with specific method documentation is much more labor-intensive.  
If you have an interface description that you had to adhere to, you wouldn't 
have the option of falling behind on updating it.  Your code simply wouldn't 
work until you did.

> D'd certainly like extensions to respond_to? so I could check argument
> type and count (think someone posted that earlier?) - but that could
> be mixed in, so I wouldnt be imposing this on those who didnt want it.

You can already do that now in Ruby, but perhaps an interface mechanism could 
make that easier.

> > Q: Okay. When an unsuitable object is passed to a method, and that method
> > tries to call a method of the object that either doesn't exist or has a
> > different number of parameters than expected, an error occurs deep inside
> > the method and it's tedious figuring out how to fix what went wrong. 
> > Some form of type checking would help us recognize our mistakes faster.
>
> But again, its less hassle to document your API than to do rigourous
> argument checking.

No, it's more hassle.  To update a document, you have to open a different 
file, and if you make a typo or just plain write it wrong, there is nothing 
to stop you from doing so.  Interfaces can be described in the same source 
file as your class definition, so it's easy to find and update, plus, you 
can't update it wrong, or your code gives you errors.

> It seemed like you were more interested in a way to know how an API
> will use your object. Why not send in a probe?

Because probes can sometimes cause damage, and the errors reported deep inside 
may not be easily understood.  It's a hit-or-miss proposition in there; some 
people have no trouble diving in and reading someone else's code.  I do it as 
a last resort because I find it's a terribly inefficient way to debug.

> Thats a back of a beermat approach, but I reckon that coupled with
> some good unit testing frees you up from relying on the kindness of
> strangers, at least a little.

I just don't think that probing and unit testing alone does quite what I'm 
proposing.  My proposal provides a lot of assurance, a lot of understanding 
right up-front, and I think will just plain make a heck of a lot of people 
happy.

> Even if it only tests method name and argument count, that gives you all
> an interface would, without any changes to the API you are using.

Well, since classes can implement interfaces, the test can also check that 
methods are being passed object that fulfill the interface contract.  So, a 
sort of type checking can be performed.

> The difference is API probing can be done with existing mechanisms,
> *optionally* and more importantly, they dont require both sides
> of the method to play by the rules. Or reach a consensus :)

We have probing already, and it functions for lots of people.  Not everyone.  
And not to the degree of ease and clarity some would like.

> > Q: Gee, alright, but I'm running out of reasons.
> >
> > A: Thus you are close to realizing the friviolity of your request.
>
> The pissing contest is getting old now, and its just drawing out a
> long thread to a longer one.

This was actually the start of it, as far as I know.  You must have gotten 
this post out of order, or read into things previously said that I didn't 
catch.

> I think I share some of both sides viewpoint, but I dont want a
> Java'ed Ruby, and it seems that this interface idea is coming from
> that angle.

It is, it most certainly is, except for two things.  One, it's not a 
requirement, you can ignore it and never have to deal with it.  Two, classes 
that claim to implement an interface can still work dynamically and can add 
their own methods.  It's just an optional feature, not a whole new system 
being imposed globally.

	Sean O'Dell


In This Thread