On Tue, March 8, 2005 1:48 am, Bill Kelly said:
> From: "ES" <ruby-ml / magical-cat.org>
>>
>> > Ruby's more readable and cleaner syntax can, on occasions, get in the way,
>> > make our one liners a few characters longer, and on other occasions
>> > Rubies objects all the way down power makes our one liners several
>> > characters shorter.
>>
>> I'd rather not, thanks. It takes about one minute to start up vi and save
>> the file afterwards. You can also use it again tomorrow.
>
> Just curious, do you make a distinction between ruby and other
> command line tools in this regard?  Or do you put everything
> you type at the command line in a file first?
>
> Like...
>
> find foo -name "*.o" | xargs rm
>
> grep sshd /var/log/auth.log | grep password
>
> ls -lt */*.xyzzy | head -n1
>
> find bar -type d -name CVS -exec rm -r {} \;
>
> etc.

You're invoking programs, not code :)

> Myself, unless I find I'm typing the same command over
> and over, I tend to just type whatever I need right at
> the command line, right at whatever directory I'm in when
> I need it, and move on.
>
> So for me, just like the non-ruby commands above, I'd be
> similarly disinclined to type things like the following
> into an editor:
>
> ruby -e 'p ARGF.read.scan(/plover/i).length' *.baz
>
> ruby -i~ -pe 'gsub(/wave rod/,"drop rod")' *.adv
>
>
> So I was wondering if you would have typed all of the
> above into an editor?  Or only the ruby ones?  And if
> only the ruby ones, why ruby is different?

No, but let me clarify one thing: I am, in particular,
(tentatively) opposed to adding any 'shortcuts' to the
language syntax (not that the decision is up to me, anyway).
Maybe we need a sed/awk replacement program in Ruby, though?

> Regards,
>
> Bill

E