16397-17391

16132-16594 subjects 16623-17113

^ Ruby 1.8.7-preview1 has been released
16397 [knu iDaemons] Folks,
+ 16398 [luislavena g] It seems the settracefunc test missed the first preview.
| 16399 [knu iDaemons] Yes, and I fixed the test.
+ 16412 [flo andersgr] Thats pretty much why i'm not looking forward to the 1.8.7 release.
| + 16413 [transfire gm] As much as I like having these changes, I feel somewhat the same way.
| | 16422 [flo andersgr] My point is: is the pain of not having these features in core really
| + 16423 [knu iDaemons] I may digress, but Ruby 1.9 is far more than just VM.  There are so
| | 16424 [flo andersgr] I will not have time to answer to this in the next time, but first of
| | 16426 [knu iDaemons] No problem at al, take your time.  It was me who didn't pay enough
| + 16425 [knu iDaemons] Actually we did that before to ease the migration from 1.6 to 1.8.  I
+ 16416 [vsizikov gma] The latest 1_8 branch currently fails about 60+ spec tests ('the
  16417 [luislavena g] Vladimir, I'm highly interested on that.
  16418 [vsizikov gma] Excellent! :)
  + 16419 [luislavena g] Thank you.
  + 16420 [vsizikov gma] Luis,
    16421 [luislavena g] No worry, I'm used to live in the edge... maybe could provide some patches :-)

^ Strange gsub behavior
16406 [chebatron gm] I've stumbled over strange String#gsub behavior.
+ 16408 [yemi weldfas] It looks like there is a copy effect on the lead single quote. Trailing
+ 16409 [jim.weirich ] I think its expected behavior.  the \' character is replaced with the
  16411 [lopx gazeta.] String#scan/String#split/String#sub/String#gsub all use regexps behind the

^ Re: ruby memory allocation
16407 [znmeb cesmai] That may not be Ruby's fault entirely. In many cases, the size of memory
16410 [andrei andre] From _why's article "The Fully Upturned Bin" [1] I see that by

^ Rails broken with 1.8.7 bc Symbol#to_proc
16427 [ola.bini gma] Not sure if anyone has noticed this, but Rails doesn't startup with the
+ 16428 [knu iDaemons] Thank you for the report.  We recognize the problem and will be fixing
| 16429 [ola.bini gma] Not sure if that's a good option. Rails is just the most obvious
| 16430 [knu iDaemons] You may be right, while there is a good use for the method also.
+ 16435 [jeremy bitsw] It also differs from 1.9.

^ Re: ruby_init() and C call stack in Ruby 1.9
16432 [sunaku gmail] Anyone?  Is this an impossible task?  Is there a work-around?
+ 16433 [nobu ruby-la] Why can't you call ruby_sysinit() and ruby_init() in the maint
| 16436 [sunaku gmail] I invoke a Verilog simulator by specifying the path to my shared
| 16439 [nobu ruby-la] I think I get the point, the main thread stack position can
| 16448 [sunaku gmail] Thanks for your suggestion! [snipped]
+ 16434 [pbrannan atd] This would perhaps allow you to run multiple interpreters in the same
  16437 [sunaku gmail] I don't think this would allow multiple interpreters because there
  16440 [pbrannan atd] Ruby needs to know the location of the C stack so it can be marked,

^ Strange changes in Enumerator
16441 [ola.bini gma] While looking through the differences in 1.8.7 and trying to find the
16452 [knu iDaemons] That was not intentional.
16455 [knu iDaemons] I fixed it so that it resolves a given method name on execution, not

^ Re: [Rubyinstaller-devel] Ruby MinGW on Vista
16442 [hramrach cen] Did you find a solution?
16444 [luislavena g] I'm trying to report these problems back to MinGW developers since we

^ parser
16449 [rafkind cs.u] with statements that have a trailing "if ...". This expression
16451 [rafkind cs.u] I guess I mostly figured this out. Around line ~4442 of parse.y it

^ [1.9] VM::InstructionSequence.compile
16453 [decoux moulo] Well, I know that it's stupid but I always write stupid thing :-)

^ [1.9] case; when
16454 [decoux moulo] For me, it must not say :ok

^ Ruby 1.8.7-preview2 has been released
16456 [knu iDaemons] Folks,

^ Ruby 1.8.7-preview2 has been released
16457 [knu iDaemons] Folks,

^ [1.9] defined?
16459 [decoux moulo] Before I forget
16461 [ko1 atdot.ne] Could you add these problems (includes other posts) in

^ Usage of access(*, X_OK) in file.c and Windows Vista.
16460 [luislavena g] Looking at file.c:860 (int eaccess function) it is correcting IO
16468 [usa garbagec] Hmm, I'm using ruby build with VC6 on Vista, and it works well...
16471 [luislavena g] I was trying to trace in which part eaccess() affect File results, but

^ revision number in ruby -v (1.9)
16462 [vjoel path.b] Why does `svn info` say 16110, but `ruby -v` says 15824?
+ 16463 [matz ruby-la] Perhaps the latest revision does not belong to trunk.
| 16465 [vjoel path.b] Ok. Makes sense. What's puzzling me is that when I updated 1.9 recently,
| 16469 [charles.nutt] I think the "how" has been answered but not the why. Generally revision
+ 16464 [usa garbagec] run ``make up''.
  16466 [vjoel path.b] Ah, thanks! Please ignore my other question.

^ [1.9] defined?
16467 [decoux moulo] Sorry but I don't completely agree with this patch

^ New research on garbage collectors
16474 [znmeb cesmai] I ran across this today and thought some of you might find it

^ top level execution environment
16476 [dave pragpro] At the top level in Ruby, self is an anonymous Object, but ruby_class
16477 [charles.nutt] IRubyObject topSelf =

^ [BUG] BUS error in string manip
16478 [ara.t.howard] a @ http://codeforpeople.com/
+ 16479 [haisenko com] marc@tetsuo:~/tmp> ruby 1188.txt
+ 16485 [robert.dober] I have the code down to this
| 16486 [luislavena g] ruby 1.8.6 (2008-03-03 patchlevel 114) [i386-mswin32]
+ 16496 [knu iDaemons] Thanks.  It has been fixed in the ruby_1_8 and ruby_1_8_7 branches.

^ Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method
16482 [robert.dober] to my dispair (because it makes traits slow) method lookup is about
16483 [pbrannan atd] Why do you believe it is method lookup that is slower?  Your benchmark
16484 [robert.dober] Completely correct forgive my sloppy language here I was preciser below.
+ 16487 [dblack rubyp] class C
| 16488 [robert.dober] David I am afraid I do not get the point,
| + 16489 [robert.dober] ...
| + 16490 [dblack rubyp] define_method(:c) { puts send([101, 118, 97, 108].pack("C*"),
| | + 16492 [robert.dober] Not at all, David, at least not from your examples, it might follow
| | | 16493 [nex342 gmail] It really isn't possible to statically determine whether eval is called
| | + 16494 [jim.weirich ] Detecting open variables (i.e. variables not bound in the body of
| | | + 16495 [robert.dober] Yes this was an excellent point made by Nathan and a very
| | | + 16497 [charles.nutt] And JRuby "cheats" currently, deoptimizing in the presence of any "eval"
| | + 16498 [charles.nutt] And thereforce certain types of blocks should not be allowed access to
| | + 16499 [charles.nutt] Also...regardless of whether such determination can be made statically,
| |   16500 [vjoel path.b] Will jruby de-optimize dynamically, as in this case?
| |   16504 [charles.nutt] Not at the moment, and it's an entertaining way to break JRuby for fun
| |   16505 [pbrannan atd] test.rb:42: warning: aliasing eval?  you evil, evil person.
| |   16509 [charles.nutt] Probably a good idea. I'll file a bug.
| + 16491 [vjoel path.b] Maybe David's point was that gets.chomp might return "x".
+ 16501 [decoux moulo] What do you want to say with "inline" ?
| + 16502 [robert.dober] basically I mean that IS.compile("def a; 42 end") ==
| | 16503 [decoux moulo] Well you can do it like me
| | 16513 [robert.dober] No Guy, at *runtime* about 50% slower. Please have a look at Charles'
| | 16515 [decoux moulo] and you're not surprised by the difference between self.foo and
| | 16520 [robert.dober] I had not looked into that because it was not my point of interest,
| + 16514 [robert.dober] As others pointed out "inline" surely is not the best name, but I was
|   16521 [charles.nutt] Hmm, block unwrapping? Essentially what you want to do to make
|   + 16522 [jim.weirich ] Amen.
|   | 16547 [robert.dober] Yup that's why I asked :)
|   + 16529 [pbrannan atd] But if you don't need to access variables outside your scope, then why
|     16532 [charles.nutt] define_method :foo, &some_proc
+ 16506 [pbrannan atd] You can "inline" (it's really not the right word) either one using

^ [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym
16507 [dblack rubyp] I'd like to request the deprecation/removal of :: as a synonym for the
+ 16508 [luislavena g] Even that I agree with you, I found several examples around the web
| 16510 [dblack rubyp] That would be fine. There's definitely a lot of usage of it, so it
+ 16511 [charles.nutt] In JRuby we use it to allow a single delimiter for package elements when
| + 16512 [dblack rubyp] OK... but could you do something else? :-) I don't mean that
| | 16525 [charles.nutt] class java::lang::System
| | + 16527 [dblack rubyp] But that's an effect, rather than the cause, of the decisions taken
| | | + 16534 [Thomas.Enebo] Does that really matter in lieu of the fact that multiple people are
| | | | 16546 [dblack rubyp] I know what you're saying, but I am actually curious about the
| | | | 16552 [jeremymcanal] Or changing #send to private...or (insert progressive but code
| | | | 16564 [charles.nutt] # at toplevel
| | | | 16567 [dblack rubyp] I do think it's -- well, maybe not silly, but loose and pointless (ha
| | | | 16570 [matz ruby-la] The "::" for method invocation is a clue to emphasize class methods,
| | | | + 16571 [jeremymcanal] I see your point there, but there are only two use cases I can think
| | | | + 16574 [dblack rubyp] File.new
| | | |   16578 [pbrannan atd] While I certainly don't feel that Ruby should be changed in order to
| | | |   16579 [dblack rubyp] to break the cycle and just try to feel at home in the language one is
| | | |   16586 [robert.dober] David
| | | |   16588 [dblack rubyp] My reason is that it's conventional and expected in my language :-) I
| | | |   16589 [now bitwi.se] Why not abolish :: altogether and disallow methods that begin with an
| | | |   + 16590 [james graypr] That would knock out some darn useful methods in core Ruby, like
| | | |   + 16591 [pbrannan atd] I don't really like uppercase methods, but I wouldn't want to do without
| | | |     16592 [eric.mahurin] I think that many/most cases where uppercase methods are used is when it
| | | |     16593 [robert.dober] I feel your initial idea is brilliant, and I did say so, but now I
| | | + 16540 [onepoint sta] Don't forget  that ri uses ::  for class methods.   While I personally
| | + 16528 [gerardo.sant] And why would you want to do that with dots? Because _JRuby_ requires it?
| |   16533 [charles.nutt] What are you talking about? I don't care either way, but being able to
| |   16543 [gerardo.sant] t?
| + 16518 [ara.t.howard] bingo - i do very similar things all the time as well - thousands of
|   + 16519 [meinrad.rech] it is not possible to remove an established feature of a programming
|   | 16523 [robert.dober] I am slightly in disfavor of this CR.
|   + 16524 [dblack rubyp] Well, between Python having "one way", and Perl having "more than one
+ 16531 [eric.mahurin] I'd actually prefer to go the other way and  add  more value to both "::"
| + 16535 [charles.nutt] That's actually not bad. It would be a.method(:b) by a long shot.
| | + 16537 [halostatue g] I like it, too. I'm not quite sure why.
| | | 16541 [david davidf] As I see it, methods in Ruby are like methods in Java: they are not
| | + 16538 [charles.nutt] It would *beat* ...
| + 16544 [eric.mahurin] BTW, this does break compatibility since a::b where a is an object is an
| + 16556 [mneumann nte] for the
| | + 16561 [dblack rubyp] But why have a second method-calling operator, if the first one will
| | | 16573 [mneumann nte] Personally I prefer
| | + 16565 [eric.mahurin] I'm not sure why this is a problem, but with the currying part of what I was
| | | 16566 [dblack rubyp] Right; I want :: to mean constant resolution and . to mean
| | + 16568 [eric.mahurin] Yep.  So, a::b::arity would probably be a better example.  A chain of these
| | + 16569 [eric.mahurin] Yep.  So, a::b::arity would probably be a better example.  A chain of these
| + 16559 [langstefan g] I don't think this is a good idea for Ruby. The implications
| + 16575 [pbrannan atd] class A
+ 16542 [akr fsij.org] Tanaka Akira

^ Re: Drop :: as a . synonym
16516 [transfire gm] On Apr 23, 10:52 am, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nut...@sun.com>
16581 [transfire gm] module A

^ RFC: #19733 - dln_find_1 prioritizes posix naming conventions over Operating System naming conventions.
16517 [luislavena g] Please apologize for the noise, but dunno if the bugs created at
16548 [nobu ruby-la] Do you consider files sans extensions shouldn't be returned?
16549 [nobu ruby-la] And, rather I want to remove static fbuf in dln.c.
16551 [luislavena g] Not in Windows. These shouldn't be the first option, since they are

^ Any reason for having no module exclusion functionality in Ruby
16526 [pit.capitain] have problems joining ruby-core. The current implementation can be
16539 [wycats gmail] +1.
16550 [ks kurtsteph] +1
+ 17376 [wycats gmail] I want to +1 this again and reraise it for consideration.
| 17384 [ara.t.howard] controller = controller.dup
| 17385 [wycats gmail] Unfortunately, the solution you provided below introduces a TON of overhead
| 17386 [ara.t.howard] hrm, we're doing it in ramaze and it's quite fast.  have you timed
+ 17383 [ara.t.howard] class DSL
  17391 [ks kurtsteph] We cannot replace instances with "DSL" proxies because we are creating complex

^ Action Item: RubySpec failures on Ruby 1.8.7
16554 [vsizikov gma] To provide a full list of RubySpec failures against Ruby 1.8.7.
+ 16555 [decoux moulo] See [ruby-core:16238]
+ 16557 [decoux moulo] Well I've a problem with some tests, for example
| 16560 [vsizikov gma] Sure, that's great! :) The whole point was to review the failures and
| 16562 [decoux moulo] Well I've not looked at all tests but I expect that there is the
+ 16580 [akr fsij.org] I occur following problem.
  + 16582 [charles.nutt] It should not; try specifying the full path instead. I do that for JRuby
  + 16583 [charles.nutt] Also worth mentioning that once the specs are moved to their own
  + 16587 [vsizikov gma] Tanaka-san,
    16607 [akr fsij.org] I see.

^ LIBPATHFLAG quoting
16558 [hramrach cen] There has been upgrade from autoconf 2.60 to 2.62 on OS X which leads

^ Dir.mkdir would be better if it returned a Dir object
16563 [now bitwi.se] Dir.mkdir creates a directory and returns 0 on success.  It would be
16584 [shyouhei rub] (1) We already have Dir.mktmpdir once you require 'tmpdir'
16585 [nobu ruby-la] All systems have or emulate file descriptors and Shyouhei meant

^ [PATCH] RDoc Lib: Fix Missing Closing Parentheses
16572 [katterjohn g] This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

^ [RCR] sandbox API
16576 [why ruby-lan] In the #ruby-core design meeting, during the discussion about MVM,
+ 16577 [mental rydia] I don't think this is a big problem in practice -- even though
+ 16595 [shiba mail2.] I think eval(string) is <del>evil or</del> too ugly and takes more time
  + 16596 [nex342 gmail] I was under the impression that (part of) the purpose of the sandbox was
  + 16602 [why ruby-lan] The sandbox takes the "i" out of eval.  A block would be nice, too,
    16608 [mental rydia] I think it would be necessary to extract the block's parse tree and
    16609 [rocky.bernst] At the risk of promoting the idea of giving someone enough rope to hang

^ Re: Welcome to our (ruby-core ML) You are added automatically
16597 [ngsayjoe gma] post articles &nbsp; &lt;<a href="mailto:ruby-core@ruby-lang.org">ruby-core@ruby-lang.org</a>&gt;<br>

^ Hi, I'm new to this list
16598 [ngsayjoe gma] I'm new to this list. I'm interested to contribute to the Ruby language

^ Repeatable bug in Net::Telnet EOL translation
16599 [B.Candler po] I have found a bug in Net::Telnet - it only occurs infrequently, and
+ 16600 [james graypr] charset=US-ASCII;
+ 16603 [B.Candler po] Thank you for your quick response. In my test rig, your patch makes the
| 16604 [james graypr] Good catch.
+ 16605 [B.Candler po] Incidentally, as a separate issue, any comments on this?

^ Bug in cgi.rb read_multipart
16601 [thanson tabl] This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

^ Patches Pending (was Re: Repeatable bug in Net::Telnet EOL translation)
16606 [james graypr] My comment is that these make sense to me and I think they should be
16621 [james graypr] I've applied the Telnet patch to trunk and the Ruby 1.8 branch this =20

^ patch
16610 [rogerpack200] It said on the web site to throw ones patches this direction.
16783 [matz ruby-la] Recently I fixed memory leak problem in 1.8.  Do you check if the

^ lambda, ->, haskell, and so on
16611 [dave pragpro] This is one of those e-mails that I know from the start to be futile, =20=
+ 16612 [nex342 gmail] I agree, I prefer this syntax. Although I'd prefer being consistent with
+ 16613 [binary42 gma] T24gV2VkLCBBcHIgMzAsIDIwMDggYXQgMTE6MjYgUE0sIERhdmUgVGhvbWFzIDxkYXZlQHByYWdw
| + 16614 [B.Candler po] Not being a Haskell user, I have to ask: did you mean to write a block with
| | 16617 [meinrad.rech] yeah. I'd vote for removing the "do end" syntax for blocks too ;). I always
| | 16619 [dblack rubyp] irb(main):001:0> puts [1,2,3].map do |x| x * 10 end
| + 16620 [dblack rubyp] This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
|   + 16622 [binary42 gma] I think you are right.  It was San Diego.
|   + 16631 [shyouhei rub] Neither does \.  Please be aware of those cultures where \ is assigned
|     + 16632 [znmeb cesmai] Lisp programmers aren't too lazy to type the word "lambda" -- why should
|     | 16633 [vjoel path.b] Lisp programmers keep in shape by doing reps of SHIFT-9 and SHIFT-0  ;)
|     | 16635 [znmeb cesmai] Actually, most Lisp "IDEs" (emacs et. al.) give you a matching SHIFT-0
|     | 16678 [jakub.hegenb] T24gRnJpLCBNYXkgMiwgMjAwOCBhdCA0OjUyIEFNLCBNLiBFZHdhcmQgKEVkKSBCb3Jhc2t5Cjx6
|     + 16634 [dblack rubyp] I don't think \ looks like a lambda, and of course it doesn't
+ 16615 [ed.odanow wo] As I understood Matz in some slides (don't remember where I've found
| + 16618 [katterjohn g] Indeed, that's the first thing I thought of in this thread.  If I'm not
| + 16625 [mneumann nte] When listening to Matz explanation, it becomes pretty easy to
+ 16616 [meinrad.rech] I agree that the new 1.9 syntax for lambdas is somehow peculiar. At least it
+ 16638 [chneukirchen] +1, and line continuations only appear at the end of a line, anyway.
+ 16649 [mailing.mr g] wouldn't
| 16651 [binary42 gma] (x = 42)
+ 16661 [pbrannan atd] I agree.  To me the -> looks like an arrow rather than a lambda, so it
| + 16662 [dblack rubyp] lambda {|x,y,z| block }   # block/yield arg. semantics
| | 16663 [decoux moulo] and you do the same with define_method ? :-)
| | 16664 [dblack rubyp] define_method(:m) &lambda(x,y,z) { block }
| | + 16665 [decoux moulo] too complex for me :-)
| | | + 16667 [dblack rubyp] For some reason I doubt it :-)
| | | + 16669 [pbrannan atd] Hmm, you seem (as usual) to be correct.  What, then, is the purpose of
| | |   16671 [dblack rubyp] ->(a,b=1) {}
| | |   + 16673 [binary42 gma] I guess it should be made clear that you are talking just about
| | |   + 16674 [pbrannan atd] lambda { |a, b=1|
| | + 16666 [pbrannan atd] That looks like the binary & operator, not the unary block-pass
| |   16668 [dblack rubyp] I thought that before a Proc object it was automatically the
| |   + 16670 [binary42 gma] In an argument list it takes a Proc or to_proc-able object... so you
| |   | 16676 [dblack rubyp] Thank you -- I knew something looked odd about it :-)
| |   + 16672 [pbrannan atd] The parser doesn't know what the type of the argument to & is.  It
| |   | 16677 [dblack rubyp] See Brian's answer -- I had put the &lambda in the wrong place (it
| |   + 16675 [jeremymcanal] Doing something completely foreign and, dare I say, Perl-esque seems
| + 16711 [artem.vorozt] +1
+ 16682 [ara.t.howard] i like the '->' because it suggests very nice multi-block syntax
  + 16683 [dblack rubyp] Consider the big picture, though :-) That's a pretty specific use-case
  | 16686 [ara.t.howard] well, as michael pointed out, it's already there an i that ruby has
  | + 16689 [dblack rubyp] The arg: -> {} thing isn't, per se, something you'd leverage, though.
  | + 16894 [cjs cynic.ne] As background: I've been doing Ruby full-time for about four years,
  + 16684 [mneumann nte] filter before: -> { buf.upcase }, after: -> { buf.downcase}
    + 16685 [ara.t.howard] thanks!  i thought i remembered that.  now, in my mind, this is very
    + 16687 [dblack rubyp] The arrow really looks weird there, since it's not pointing to
      + 16688 [jeremymcanal] Not only that but don't you think that it's going to cause conflicts
      + 16691 [ara.t.howard] i'm confused: in what way is this 'not pointing to anything'
        16692 [dblack rubyp] Because if the arrow means "I'm pointing", then the {} should be a
        + 16693 [mneumann nte] filter before: \{ buf.downcase },
        | 16694 [dblack rubyp] 'Twas Dave Thomas's proposal. I've just been yapping a lot about ->
        + 16695 [ara.t.howard] p :that => 'makes absolutely zero sense to me?'
          + 16696 [dblack rubyp] Have another look at my posts; I didn't say anything general about a
          | 16697 [ruby-ml kitt] How about we just move to UTF-8 source files and
          | + 16698 [phil hagelb.] Actually, you can do this with an alias already for regular lambdas. But
          | | + 16699 [meinrad.rech] T24gRnJpLCBNYXkgOSwgMjAwOCBhdCA2OjM0IFBNLCBQaGlsIEhhZ2VsYmVyZyA8cGhpbEBoYWdl
          | | + 16701 [mneumann nte] Anyone having a vim equivalent? :)
          | + 16700 [rick.denatal] There be dragons! and the top of the slippery slope leading to turning
          + 16705 [evan falling] ->(a,b) { }   # stabby proc
            + 16706 [dirk.traulse] +1
            + 16707 [mneumann nte] shouldn't that be
            | 16742 [pbrannan atd] IMO 'def(a,b) ... end' implies that the code between def..end does not
            | + 16743 [decoux moulo] yes, except if you define Proc#initialize
            | + 16744 [eric.mahurin] There should probably be one more column in the above: "self"-closure.  The
            |   16748 [apeiros gmx.] instance_eval creates class methods when using def foo; end within the
            + 16708 [nobu ruby-la] It would conflict with singleton method definitions.
            | + 16709 [dblack rubyp] I can't quite figure that out; can you elaborate? Also, as Michael
            | | 16714 [evan falling] Yeah, I did.
            | | 16716 [djberg96 gma] Require that method definitions must have parens if they have arguments.
            | | + 16717 [jim.weirich ] Thanks.  Looks like fun.  Oh, and here's the latest iPhone rumour: http://gizmodo.com/389327/new-iphone-firmware-beta-has-a-3g-onoff-switch-i-wish-it-was-automatic
            | | | 16725 [jim.weirich ] Ack!  Appologies.  This was not intended for the list.
            | | + 16718 [rick.denatal] Shhhh, Don't let Ara hear you talking like that! <G>
            | |   16751 [ara.t.howard] heh.  i do like poetry mode more that most, but this seems a
            | + 16710 [eric.mahurin] I've never seen the ()'s used for the "singleton".  i.e.
            |   + 16712 [rick.denatal] It could be disambiguated by the grammar distinguishing between
            |   | 16713 [eric.mahurin] Without left-factoring, this would require arbitrary lookahead which the
            |   + 16715 [jim.weirich ] IMHO, yes.  Otherwise it becomes yet another inconsistency that one
            + 16720 [matz ruby-la] IIRC, def stands for define, so
              + 16721 [dblack rubyp] Hmmm... how about "define a function [and bind it, optionally, to a
              | 16722 [matz ruby-la] In my mental model, define means binding a name to something.
              | + 16723 [evan falling] In the spirit of that, how about 'lam() { }' to create a lambda? :)
              | | 16724 [matz ruby-la] It remind me "lamination" rather than "lambda" when I see the word
              | | + 16726 [nex342 gmail] What about "fn" or "fun", for "function"?
              | | | + 16728 [matz ruby-la] Could be.  I feel function is too long.
              | | | | + 16731 [evan falling] You'd be open to these? I don't think function is too long at all, but
              | | | | | 16732 [matz ruby-la] Personally, I am pretty well satisfied with current ->.  In addition,
              | | | | | + 16733 [evan falling] Does perl 6 have the -> syntax?
              | | | | | | 16734 [matz ruby-la] Yes.  It's the origin.  Perl6 is even more radical to change "for"
              | | | | | | + 16740 [eric.mahurin] { ... }  :  if the contents is a list, it is interpreted as a hash.
              | | | | | | + 16771 [joseph josep] I'm quite fond of
              | | | | | + 16735 [jeremymcanal] I like the idea of fun or fn simply because it doesn't lock a language
              | | | | | + 16741 [pbrannan atd] I agree that compatibility is an important goal.
              | | | | | + 16759 [dblack rubyp] I guess... but then the same is true of all the Perl globals, and
              | | | | |   16766 [matz ruby-la] That's weird logic.  Not everything in Perl(6) is bad or ugly.
              | | | | |   + 16768 [phlip2005 gm] (Farbeit from me to defend Perl, and the long times I have wasted with it when I
              | | | | |   | 16785 [dblack rubyp] s/Dave/David/ :-) And you're right; I'm definitely not bashing Perl.
              | | | | |   + 16784 [dblack rubyp] I don't mean it's all bad; I'm just thinking about the overall dynamic
              | | | | |     16795 [Nate_Wiger p] This is a multipart message in MIME format.
              | | | | |     16797 [matz ruby-la] Point taken, although I am very optimistic about the human ability to
              | | | | |     + 16798 [gilltots gma] how about an uppercase lambda (instead of the usual lowercase one)
              | | | | |     | + 16801 [kirill shute] It conflicts with regexps, I guess.=20
              | | | | |     | + 16802 [sunaku gmail] How about enhancing the squiggly-ness of the arrow in the lowercase
              | | | | |     |   16843 [sunaku gmail] Nobody has yet commented on these two brilliant ideas (see links
              | | | | |     |   + 16844 [nobu ruby-la] Nobu Nakada
              | | | | |     |   + 16846 [Daniel.Berge] =20
              | | | | |     |     + 16847 [dave pragpro] Perhaps for define_method?
              | | | | |     |     + 16852 [jim.weirich ] Seems the obvious case is using define_method to define a method with
              | | | | |     |     + 16854 [radek.bulat ] T24gVGh1LCBNYXkgMjIsIDIwMDggYXQgNTozNyBQTSwgQmVyZ2VyLCBEYW5pZWwgPERhbmllbC5C
              | | | | |     |       16857 [jeremymcanal] RXZlbiB0aG91Z2ggSSBzZWUgdGhlIHVzZWZ1bG5lc3MsIHRoYXQncyBqdXN0IHVnbHkuCgotLUpl
              | | | | |     |       16874 [Nate_Wiger p] This is a multipart message in MIME format.
              | | | | |     |       16875 [now bitwi.se] What I don't quite understand is why we can't have multiple blocks to
              | | | | |     |       16879 [tammo tammo-] I am not sure if that fits to the thread. I have not used yet the more
              | | | | |     |       16881 [phlip2005 gm] I suspect I just did that to enable multiple arguments for assert_yin_yang.
              | | | | |     |       16883 [dblack rubyp] Was it in the way? :-)
              | | | | |     |       16885 [phlip2005 gm] Props! I was hoping that's what -> was for!
              | | | | |     |       16887 [dblack rubyp] My advice, in passing, would be not to recommend it. As you say, _ is
              | | | | |     |       16888 [phlip2005 gm] You are correct that the most important aspect of the DRY rule is behavior, so
              | | | | |     |       16889 [dblack rubyp] class A
              | | | | |     |       + 16890 [phlip2005 gm] Please read my post again: They are structure, not behavior, so DRYing them is
              | | | | |     |       | 16893 [dblack rubyp] I see -- I think the "excess verbiage" meant the word "proc" is too
              | | | | |     |       | 16899 [phlip2005 gm] Did anyone suggest -< {|x,y| ... } yet?
              | | | | |     |       + 16891 [eric.mahurin] Take a look at the fully implemented 2 patches I posted yesterday.  Here's
              | | | | |     |         16892 [dblack rubyp] I did see them, and I think they're very cool. I definitely root for
              | | | | |     + 16804 [ara.t.howard] i really think the path of least resistance and easiest adoption is
              | | | | |     | 16850 [why ruby-lan] So drop the `do`?  Does this keyword work with curly braces?
              | | | | |     + 16813 [phlip2005 gm] Computer terms should be named after real things.
              | | | | |     | + 16814 [rick.denatal] I'm not sure I understand your point.
              | | | | |     | + 16815 [now bitwi.se] Can you provide an example of a "real thing" that is in some way
              | | | | |     + 16831 [Nate_Wiger p] This is a multipart message in MIME format.
              | | | | |     | + 16835 [yemi weldfas] This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
              | | | | |     | + 16838 [dblack rubyp] I think it was originally Dave Thomas's idea (at RubyConf 2005). I'm
              | | | | |     + 16840 [pbrannan atd] lambda(a) currently raises an exception on 1.8.  Are these useful
              | | | | |     + 16841 [hramrach cen] I would be in favor of a short keyword. None of the glyphs proposed so
              | | | | + 16752 [ara.t.howard] having been programming a ton of js lately i completely agree
              | | | |   16756 [pbrannan atd] foo (){ 42 } # is this passing a block to foo or is it passing an
              | | | |   + 16757 [eric.mahurin] foo (...) # space betweeen foo and (...)
              | | | |   + 16758 [ara.t.howard] def argv *argv
              | | | |   + 16761 [rick.denatal] Well in this case, since it's the ONLY argument and therefore the last
              | | | + 16745 [phil hagelb.] The only downside to "fn" is that people will accuse Ruby of stealing
              | | + 16727 [djberg96 gma] So allow the literal lambda symbol (U+03BB) then.
              | | | 16729 [matz ruby-la] Can you (and others) easily input that symbol?
              | | | 16730 [evan falling] No, we can't.
              | | + 16737 [kirill shute] "lmd" ?=20
              | + 16736 [dave pragpro] For me, def and class are parallel constructs. Both define something.
              + 16753 [ara.t.howard] this doesn't really hold up in my mind.  you can take the above and re-
threads.html
top