150583-152510

150426-155618 subjects 150712-152010

Punctuations for grouping elements of a group
150583 [basi_lio@ho ] Nice to have some flexibility on acceptable punctuations for grouping

Rails book
150590 [fxn@ha hr f.] Am I the only one doing compulsory page reloads since July 30? :-)
+ 150596 [lyle.johnson] No. ;)
+ 150768 [ptkwt@ar cn ] They've got'em at OSCON.

Comparing directory contents
150600 [datapanix@gm] I work in the SCM dept of a Windows software shop.  A typical software build
+ 150602 [ruby.brian@g] Does this help?
+ 150623 [lukfugl@gm i] Though Brian Schr?der gave an interesting irb implementation, what you
| + 150631 [mailinglists] <flame>
| | + 150632 [email55555@g] FILES_NAME = 'files.txt'          # files.txt will content all files name
| | | 150633 [email55555@g] Oops forget the very begin line ...
| | + 150724 [lukfugl@gm i] Ok, to qualify my statement: Don't reinvent this particular wheel for
| |   + 150725 [lukfugl@gm i] Rather,
| |   + 150745 [Ara.T.Howard] the way i read the OP's post the original contents should be stored and
| |     150808 [lukfugl@gm i] Ok, I forgot about that constraint. I still think diff would be the
| + 150727 [chneukirchen] Or just use the tool windiff.exe which can be found on your windows
+ 150755 [datapanix@gm] All,

r43 hits beta! 0.3.0 release
150607 [pat.eyler@gm] Thanks to the efforts of several people in the Ruby Programming Shop,
150625 [brian.wisti@] Hey Pat,
150629 [pat.eyler@gm] well, the readme has some examples in it ... I guess we should
150765 [brian.wisti@] That's good enough to get me started poking at it, so I am good to go.
150776 [pat.eyler@gm] That's actually a really good idea.   I'll put it into my short term plans.

interesting test tool... looking for opinions.
150608 [jeff.darklig] There is wonderful java-based testing unit framework called TestNG.
+ 150630 [halostatue@g] be useful is forwarding this to Nathaniel Talbott to see what he's
+ 150646 [mrcode@ne ro] I've taken just a very cursory look, but I imagine a Ruby equivalent could
  + 150648 [halostatue@g] I prefer to think that a Ruby version would use Ruby.
  | 150653 [the_mindstor] #: Austin Ziegler changed the world a bit at a time by saying on  8/4/2005 1:16 AM :#
  | 150659 [jeff.darklig] well, first we'll need to get matz input on adding attributes @ the
  | 150662 [halostatue@g] I don't think so.
  | 150666 [jeff.darklig] I like your second one better ... my only question would then be your
  | 150674 [halostatue@g] Probably not much different than yours. test_method would add this
  | 150689 [the_mindstor] #: Austin Ziegler changed the world a bit at a time by saying on  8/4/2005 4:08 AM :#
  | 150691 [pit@ca it in] No, you can't attach metadata to methods, but you can attach them to the
  | + 150692 [jeff.darklig] Yeah, Why's got a great article in his blog on metaprogramming.
  | | 150693 [the_mindstor] #: Jeff Wood changed the world a bit at a time by saying on  8/4/2005 9:06 AM :#
  | | 150694 [jeff.darklig] There is also a really good section in PickAxe2 on metaprogramming.
  | | 150698 [reyn.vlietst] Attributes, metadata on methods are one of the things C# gave me that
  | | 150701 [the_mindstor] #: Reyn Vlietstra changed the world a bit at a time by saying on  8/4/2005 12:07 PM :#
  | | 150752 [jeff.darklig] Jeff Wood
  | + 150772 [ptkwt@ar cn ] Why couldn't you add metadata to methods?
  |   + 150774 [the_mindstor] #: Phil Tomson changed the world a bit at a time by saying on  8/4/2005 9:16 PM :#
  |   | + 150779 [jeff.darklig] The only thing I don't like about that solution is that you define the
  |   | + 150781 [ptkwt@ar cn ] irb(main):001:0> class Object
  |   |   150785 [jeff.darklig] if we do it that way, all we then need for the function attributes is
  |   + 150780 [vjoel@pa h. ] foometh2 = self.method(:foo)
  + 150721 [mrcode@ne ro] I see there has been quite a few additional discussions of this. I decided

Re: [Rails] RMagick problem
150611 [joevandyk@gm] Ah, good idea.
150617 [pit@ca it in] I hope it's not too late :-) If you call @file.read.size, shouldn't you
150622 [joevandyk@gm] Hm, dunno.  I'll try it when I get home.  I just added the print

YAML.dump/YAML.load bug
150620 [pbattley@gm ] I have identified what seems to be a bug in the current Ruby

Modern smalltalk and lisp learning environments
150626 [john.johnkni] ...
+ 150700 [bearitall@ra] I could never go for the smalltalk route for much the same reason that I
| + 150704 [mailinglists] Oh i love class names like "ARACHNO_XML_TO_INTERNAL_PROJECT_PARSER"
| | 150746 [ptkwt@ar cn ] But often key in staving off carpal tunnel...
| | 150751 [vfoley@gm il] That's why you should use some form of auto completion :)
| + 150735 [chneukirchen] I prefer to measure the superiority of languages in lines, not
+ 150722 [chrisgame@ex] Well that's Lisp and Smalltalk, but how long before the same is true

Ruby SMTP server library ?
150639 [mailinglists] Is there any library that implements a simple SMTP, allowing me to send
+ 150641 [zdennis@mk e] er... net/smtp in the standard library?
| 150642 [billk@ct .c ] Keep in mind some hosts will reject mail from systems
+ 150645 [khaines@en g] I'd love to see even the front end of something like that.  Just enough of an
  150668 [james_b@ne r] Yes.  It would be sweet to be able to E-mail an application and have it
  150671 [steven.jenki] I think Lothar was asking about the sending end of the transaction. As
  150683 [james_b@ne r] Ah.  Still, I'd like an app that listened on port 25 and knew the HELO,
  + 150703 [mailinglists] send out some mass email. Even with about a few hunderts of email
  | 150714 [khaines@en g] I send some email newsletters for clients, and have had absolutely no problems
  | 150720 [mailinglists] Well it only works if the owner of the SMTP server to which you
  + 150716 [khaines@en g] SMTP is simple, so it should not be hard to code one of these, if nobody has

strange: 'super' is not the parent class
150652 [barabucc@cs ] When I try to run the attached code (ar2.rb) with ruby 1.8.2 I get the
+ 150654 [dblack@wo bl] super here calls the previous packDecl, which returns a string.  You
| 150702 [barabucc@cs ] You are correct, 'super' is all I need.
+ 150656 [acharlieblue] The problem is that super is not an object; it's the superclass'

regex question
150655 [joevandyk@gm] sw_corner = 1000,-1000
+ 150657 [Ara.T.Howard] (untested)
+ 150660 [dblack@wo bl] require 'scanf'
| 150672 [vikkous@gm i] eval "filename"   #;)
| + 150675 [joevandyk@gm] Ah... I was trying to do instance_eval.  Why didn't that work?
| + 150678 [dblack@wo bl] $ cat corners.txt
+ 150677 [w_a_x_man@ya] map_data = DATA.read

converting to ints
150658 [joevandyk@gm] I have a class that could look something like this
150665 [halostatue@g] Yes.
150946 [joevandyk@gm] Wondering if it would be useful to have functions like
150960 [vjoel@pa h. ] You might want to use #to_i rather than #to_int, so that strings are
150964 [joevandyk@gm] Yes, you're right.  Brain fart on my part.

libole2 and ruby
150661 [Ara.T.Howard] i'm looking at libole2 as a portable method of reading excel files.  it seems
+ 150664 [Ara.T.Howard] replying to myself: it seems the info i was reading was not correct - the docs
| 150753 [shanko_date@] If you want to script for reading Excel files on Windows then Win32ole (standard lib) is the way
| 150759 [Ara.T.Howard] hey shanko-
| 150760 [Daniel.Berge] You are not mistaken.  It is only for writing.
| 150764 [Ara.T.Howard] ok.  seems wrapping catdoc and xls2csv may be the best approach - this code
+ 150793 [julian@co et] That's quite interesting - I was looking at outputting excel files.

[OT] Re: [RCR] array or with non-array
150669 [vjoel@pa h. ] warn "philosophical pootling ahead"

[ANN] rubyrrdtool 0.5.0
150670 [probertm@ac ] I am pleased to announce the initial release of rubyrrdtool, a Ruby

Re: strange: 'super' is not the parent class (Warning! Cornball humor inside.)
150679 [transfire@gm] Yes, very strange... Do you ever wonder about these names? I do. Why is

Ruby Gem Box
150685 [transfire@gm] ...
150687 [john.carter@] Google Translation....

ruby and sap
150696 [botp@de mo t] I think Piers frequents this list..
150739 [piers@om a. ] Thanks botp - I'm still trying to get people interested in the
150813 [botp@de mo t] # - I'm still trying to get people interested in the

How safe: overridding require
150707 [transfire@gm] How safe is this?
150844 [nobuyoshi.na] What do you mean by "safe"?
150945 [transfire@gm] Safe in that it won't cause problems w/ other's work --with Gems, for
151034 [evanwebb@gm ] The "safety" of this is probably debatable, and I believe so is the use
151213 [transfire@gm] [Sorry I hadn't gone to this sooner].

new block notation (was: Re: ruby-dev summary 26468-26661)
150709 [martinelzen@] I like that new block notation as well.  Somehow it's always felt just the
+ 150767 [brian.wisti@] Aww, but now it looks even less like Smalltalk! I kid, I will live
| 150799 [matz@ru y- a] That's OK.  The new notation is to replace lambda.
| 150801 [eric_mahurin] f = { ... code .. }
| + 150802 [matz@ru y- a] I don't agree.  Punctuation symbol nor sequence of them itself is not
| | + 150807 [halostatue@g] Mmmm. I think that part of Perl's problem *is* overpunctuation. I do
| | + 150810 [eric_mahurin] It does?  How so?  I said :+space to not conflict with the
| | | + 150812 [matz@ru y- a] Yes.  It's among the steps lambda becoming more like real anonymous
| | | + 150814 [blaumag@gm i] 10.times -> i { puts i }
| | + 150815 [dblack@wo bl] But if you had a language (and I imagine there is one somewhere :-)
| | | + 150816 [matz@ru y- a] I agree.  Too much symbols can cause memory problem.  I had an
| | | + 150846 [kevin.jackso] Yes!  Brainf*ck your time has come...
| | | + 150859 [chneukirchen] I guess you don't like APL and friends. :-)
| | | + 151161 [dagbrown@LA ] Prolog!
| | + 150817 [florgro@gm i] I'm probably not in the position to criticize, but I still feel like I
| |   + 150822 [matz@ru y- a] I didn't choose -> syntax just because "the most obvious one is too
| |   | + 150827 [transfire@gm] matz,
| |   | | + 150828 [matz@ru y- a] It's not funny for a person who had bunch of troubles with managing /
| |   | | + 150829 [mailing-list] I assume that you're kidding, but for anyone who didn't understand
| |   | + 150836 [florgro@gm i] Pardon the trollish oversimplification and thanks for the detailed
| |   |   + 150843 [matz@ru y- a] I don't think so.  Google on ruby-talk may give you some information.
| |   |   | + 150847 [jeff.darklig] matz,
| |   |   | | + 150868 [dblack@wo bl] With regard to the first one (and for the sake of all of us, including
| |   |   | | + 150979 [matz@ru y- a] I am not going to add a new reserved word for the problem which is not
| |   |   | + 150872 [gavin@re in ] ...
| |   |   | | 150978 [matz@ru y- a] They are all different for good reasons, but I do want to keep them
| |   |   | | 150995 [gavin@re in ] Excellent on the quacking front. Does the following summary
| |   |   | | + 151004 [daniel@br ck] Gavin,
| |   |   | | | 151007 [mreed@th re ] There's more than one possible meaning of "closure" in the context of
| |   |   | | + 151011 [transfire@gm] That's the ONLY difference between lambdas and blocks? I'm not even
| |   |   | | | + 151015 [transfire@gm] Yes, I'm confused myself b/c I don't see any difference between a block
| |   |   | | | | + 151033 [daniel@br ck] Lambdas (or procs) are anonymous functions.  Blocks are what
| |   |   | | | | | + 151057 [transfire@gm] Thanks. And yep as I said I know all that. Here's my problem: there's
| |   |   | | | | | + 151066 [eric_mahurin] This gives an idea for an alternative to the ->(..){..} syntax.
| |   |   | | | | |   151073 [jimfreeze@gm] This looks similar to what exists now in 1.8.2.
| |   |   | | | | |   151109 [eric_mahurin] Yep, but what I'm proposing here is illegal in 1.8.2 so it
| |   |   | | | | |   151115 [chneukirchen] +1, reasonable syntax.
| |   |   | | | | + 151054 [surrender_it] IIUC the point is that arguments given to a (future) lambda will act
| |   |   | | | |   151056 [transfire@gm] Please continue.
| |   |   | | | |   + 151069 [dbatml@gm .d] I think somewhere in this thread I read that block/current lambda
| |   |   | | | |   + 151079 [sylvain.joye] Blocks and lambdas behave differently w.r.t. flow operators, because blocks
| |   |   | | | |     151091 [transfire@gm] I don't see the difference to which you are referring. What "flow
| |   |   | | | |     + 151092 [sylvain.joye] &lamb un-lambdas lamb
| |   |   | | | |     | 151094 [transfire@gm] module Enumerable
| |   |   | | | |     | 151098 [sylvain.joye] * it converts a block into a Proc object which is have a different
| |   |   | | | |     | 151108 [dooby@d1 .k ] You stopped short of giving a working example.
| |   |   | | | |     + 151101 [mreed@th re ] I read the intent of the OP as to say that "return" from a lambda only
| |   |   | | | + 151111 [matz@ru y- a] TWO differences.
| |   |   | | |   + 151112 [mreed@th re ] Does this difference already exist in Ruby 1.8?  I don't see any
| |   |   | | |   | 151116 [sylvain.joye] See [ruby-talk:151108] and remember that in Ruby 1.8, Proc.new <block> does
| |   |   | | |   + 151123 [transfire@gm] Thanks, matz. Those are the well spelled out points I've been seeking.
| |   |   | | |     + 151124 [transfire@gm] Sorry,
| |   |   | | |     + 151157 [transfire@gm] Okay, one last post and then I'll shut-up about it. I thought of a way
| |   |   | | |     + 151188 [matz@ru y- a] I don't care if they are different object or not.  It's an
| |   |   | | |       151225 [Ara.T.Howard] function with one param
| |   |   | | + 151014 [langstefan@g] Am I misunderstanding you completely?
| |   |   | |   151081 [chneukirchen] any assumptions about the non-local binding of the block.  (The
| |   |   | + 150901 [florgro@gm i] Thank you. If there ever is the chance of you writing another book on
| |   |   |   150980 [matz@ru y- a] Introducing a new reserved word possibly break existing code.  Besides
| |   |   |   + 150996 [dblack@wo bl] ...
| |   |   |   | 151185 [matz@ru y- a] Perhaps, but we might not have Proc in the future after Block/Lambda
| |   |   |   + 151018 [florgro@gm i] Should be okay as long as it isn't used as a method name. The 1.9 () on
| |   |   |   | + 151021 [dblack@wo bl] ...
| |   |   |   | | 151032 [florgro@gm i] sub my_times {
| |   |   |   | | 151035 [daniel@br ck] Just a random thought.  If we can't do fun(...) { ...}
| |   |   |   | | 151044 [florgro@gm i] Thought about it shortly as well while browsing through the keyword
| |   |   |   | | 151048 [daniel@br ck] Yeah... that looks, uh, off. :-)
| |   |   |   | | + 151050 [james@gr yp ] That would make me happy too.
| |   |   |   | | | 151053 [mreed@th re ] How about allowing the actual Unicode character
| |   |   |   | | + 151061 [jimfreeze@gm] I can't agree to any construct that has 'do do' as a common idiom.
| |   |   |   | |   151190 [ruby.brian@g] Dead as a dodo, as my favourit author put it once.
| |   |   |   | + 151055 [surrender_it] maybe with should go the Oz route, which provide a
| |   |   |   | | + 151060 [ no@sp m. om] If def returned the actual function, the 'anonymous' functionality would
| |   |   |   | | | 151078 [surrender_it] yes, but I was thinking on the lines of "mh.. def withouth a name does
| |   |   |   | | + 151062 [transfire@gm] You have no idea what this means to me :-) Here in lies the all the
| |   |   |   | + 151186 [matz@ru y- a] Right.  But adding a new reserved word makes all programs using that
| |   |   |   |   + 151193 [florgro@gm i] I'm really not sure if I see the problem with this.
| |   |   |   |   | + 151205 [dblack@wo bl] ...
| |   |   |   |   | | 151212 [james@gr yp ] Good point!
| |   |   |   |   | + 151243 [transfire@gm] Is it not possible to use "do" in this capacity?
| |   |   |   |   |   151268 [florgro@gm i] Oh, indeed. Pardon the oversight. It should look for either { or do.
| |   |   |   |   |   151356 [murphy@cY nu] Murrr... why can't we use do...end here?
| |   |   |   |   |   + 151436 [nobuyoshi.na] That syntax has been introduced once but deleted this time.
| |   |   |   |   |   + 151437 [florgro@gm i] So it would to a point conflict with the current behavior and it might
| |   |   |   |   |     151440 [transfire@gm] double = do(x){ x*2 }
| |   |   |   |   |     151491 [halostatue@g] Hmm. But that doesn't allow for clean, anonymous lambdas. I see
| |   |   |   |   |     151497 [dblack@wo bl] If I'm reading its intent correctly (create a lambda and assign it to
| |   |   |   |   + 151495 [blaumag@gm i] The concern about backwards compatibility shouldn't be such, and
| |   |   |   + 151041 [navindra@cs ] Just my +1 cents for Florian here.  def or even lambda both sound
| |   |   |     151049 [james@gr yp ] [...]          anonymous array
| |   |   |     151192 [ruby.brian@g] All the code examples I have seen here that use the comic-swearing
| |   |   + 150874 [flori@ni e. ] At first I rejected the syntax, too. But after thinking about it for a
| |   |     150887 [dblack@wo bl] That's a good reason for it not to stay.  I wish there were some way
| |   |     150891 [Ara.T.Howard] threshold < lisp and threshold > perl
| |   |     + 150892 [dblack@wo bl] More punctuation than Perl?  We'll have to agree to disagree.... :-)
| |   |     | 151104 [martindemell] He's obviously talking about population inversion (and, appropriately
| |   |     + 150895 [Ara.T.Howard] gawd i need coffee ;-(
| |   + 150826 [transfire@gm] Florian,
| |   + 150840 [ no@sp m. om] I find this the most unified looking, similar to JavaScript's function() {}.
| |   | 150871 [gavin@re in ] ...
| |   + 150861 [gavin@re in ] FWIW, this is what Lua allows - a special syntax for the special case
| |   + 150866 [jfh@ci e. fl] I'm just going to throw in that when I first found Ruby I was so excited
| |     + 150869 [hal9000@hy e] Yes, thank you, I agree.
| |     + 150870 [threeve.org@] I hadn't seen this particular variant posted in this thread yet.
| |       + 150880 [Ara.T.Howard] nice.  i like it!
| |       + 150882 [eric_mahurin] { arg-list <delimiter> code }
| |       | 150908 [dooby@d1 .k ] For the purposes of keeping the discussion relevant, this should
| |       | 150916 [mailing-list] I wonder what the English language will become after a couple decades
| |       | + 150925 [dooby@d1 .k ] I'm not sure if you're requesting an apology or an excuse or both or neither ;)
| |       | | 150931 [mailing-list] Oh, neither, sorry.  I just felt like pointing out how vimfully people
| |       | | 150937 [vjoel@pa h. ] Not sure vimfully is a word (Webster doesn't think so), but I understand
| |       | | 150991 [mailing-list] No, it's not; I misspelled whim, but I guess that also became part of
| |       | + 150927 [florgro@gm i] Languages change a lot. Sometimes language change can't be avoided even
| |       |   150932 [mailing-list] Yes, nice analogy ;-).  However, there's a difference between change and
| |       + 150888 [dblack@wo bl] The problem I have with this is that you can't tell until you get to
| + 150803 [Ara.T.Howard] how about something a little more mathematical
| | + 150805 [vjoel@pa h. ] Ugh. It's still assigning a value to a variable. Why should the syntax
| | + 150806 [eric_mahurin] a. doesn't solve the problem that the default "value" can be an
| + 150804 [halostatue@g] I don't. I use hashes more than I use anonymous code blocks (lambdas). Far more.
| + 150842 [martindemell] That's rather drastic. All it needs is a new symbol for literal hashes.
|   150855 [transfire@gm] Nah, just use the _collection_ brackets for both array and hash. The
|   + 150897 [itsme213@ho ] +1
|   + 150898 [dblack@wo bl] I don't like to have to scan visually for a separator in order to know
|   | + 150905 [Ara.T.Howard] 42
|   | + 150907 [transfire@gm] David,
|   + 150947 [martindemell] # empty array
|   | 150948 [transfire@gm] [:]
|   | 150949 [dblack@wo bl] => is a connector between a key and value.  It doesn't make sense for
|   | 150955 [daniel.amela] Except to say 'keys and values go here'. But it's one of those
|   + 150981 [matz@ru y- a] Yes, if it isn't empty.
|   | 150999 [transfire@gm] [:]  # empty hash
|   | 151000 [dblack@wo bl] I'm still not seeing how
|   | 151001 [daniel@br ck] The reason people are suggesting the [:] syntax is to avoid
|   | 151002 [dblack@wo bl] I may be taking the discussion in a circle, but... what confusion with
|   | 151008 [daniel@br ck] I shouldn't have said confusion, but ambiguity, or conflict.
|   | + 151012 [dblack@wo bl] $ /usr/local/lib/ruby-cvs/bin/ruby -ve '{||}'
|   | | 151031 [daniel@br ck] Then I guess it was removed.
|   | + 151559 [bg-rubytalk@] I agree that the current syntax is really confusing.  Since Ruby 2.0
|   |   + 151560 [halostatue@g] They aren't equal, though. There is a binding difference between
|   |   | 151572 [bg-rubytalk@] Right.  I kinda knew this when I posted (at least, I remembered
|   |   + 151564 [eric_mahurin] I agree with this last statement too.  I'd rather keep the {}
|   |     151569 [james@gr yp ] We have the current Array[...]/Hash[...] option, which has been
|   |     + 151571 [brockweaver@] ...
|   |     + 151574 [eric_mahurin] Yep.  If you used those two, you really wouldn't even need the
|   |       152477 [murphy@cY nu] Mmh...this is not the philosophy of Ruby as I understood it. We don't
|   |       152510 [matz@ru y- a] Hash literals will not be changed nor removed.
|   + 151499 [george.mosch] nice, dunno if this breaks other things though!
+ 150856 [vfoley@gm il] this is the first time I see this thread, and I was wondering *why*
threads.html
top