48593-50133

48482-58263 subjects 48710-50035

ANN: Ruby/Tk Widget Demos at new home
48593 [mgushee@ha e] You don't know me yet, but I'm the new maintainer of the Ruby/Tk

Problems building mysql library on 1.7.3 on win32
48597 [rich@in oe h] ms c/c++: v 13.00.9466 (vs studio .net)

how to create a ruby object via the c-api?
48605 [matthias_vei] how is it possible to create a certain ruby object via the c-api?

A completely different Amrita has a Ruby interface
48611 [W.L.Kleb@la ] James Quirk has put together a unique software system which melds

question about 'configure' with tk
48614 [jean-francoi] I am working on the way to let user choose options of the GUI.
48615 [decoux@mo lo] Try this
48824 [nagai@ai ky ] # Still my eye's status is not so good.

Unsubscribe
48616 [stephan@mu .] I tried to unsubscribe following the web instructions (ruby-talk-ctl)

Pure Ruby implementation of CRC32?
48618 [feldt@ce ch ] Anyone seen it?
48623 [phasis@ko ne] Try this
48643 [meier@me st ] Or (more rubyish)

Ruby at 1.7.3?
48627 [chrismo@cl b] Just curious (and confused), I've seen 1.7.3 mentioned a couple of times
+ 48628 [rich@in oe h] When you check out of CVS and build the version is reported in Ruby as
| 48630 [chrismo@cl b] D'oh! ... thanks, that would be a good place to check. :)
+ 48629 [decoux@mo lo] Apparently 7.3
+ 48632 [lyle@kn lo y] This surprised me too. The version number was definitely bumped up to

Can We Pass Block from Function to Function?
48633 [billtj@y. lu] def func1 (arg1, &arg2)
+ 48634 [nat.pryce@b1] def func2 (arg1,  &proc)
+ 48635 [behrends@cs ] func1(arg1, &arg2)
| 48636 [billtj@y. lu] Thanks a lot.  It works!  When I checked the methods of class Proc in the
| 48639 [behrends@cs ] It is not a standard operator like "+" that is converted into a method
| 48641 [billtj@y. lu] Thanks for your response.  The reason I asked is because usually when I
| 48684 [vjoel@PA H. ] VALUE rb_iterate(VALUE (*method)(), VALUE args, VALUE (*block)(),
+ 48647 [transami@tr ] this brings up some interesting notions, when i first read pickaxe, this
  48652 [nat.pryce@b1] The advantage of using a call method, rather than some special syntax,

Ruby Logos
48640 [web2ed@ya oo] I was able to grab a nice looking `Powered by Ruby' Logo a few months
+ 48646 [james@ja es ] James
+ 48650 [lyle@kn lo y] ...

dbi peculiar behavior
48642 [djberge@v5 h] Ruby 1.6.7, dbi .16, oracle .2.11
+ 48649 [dossy@pa op ] You always want to #dup a row returned from a DBI fetch.  The underlying
+ 48877 [uu9r@rz un -] data, data, X

Questions about Netruby (Ruby for .net)
48644 [james@ja es ] A little while ago I tried to contact Arton about Netruby, but have yet to

How to write scripts with plug-in support [long]
48648 [surrender_it] ( I'm not a great ruby programer, I'm not a great
48656 [szegedy@no p] ...
+ 48676 [patrick-may@] I did not recieve this attachment.  Is this posted somewhere?
| 48677 [hal9000@hy e] Here it is... pasted below.
+ 48714 [surrender_it] <snip/>
  48733 [szegedy@t- n] It depends on your programm structure...

ICFP Programming Contest
48657 [alan@di ik t] So is anyone interested in forming a team?
+ 48658 [leon@ug s. a] The logic for pushing robots is nearly the same as required (aside from
+ 48663 [ptkwt@sh ll ] Looks interesting... so how should we break up the problem?
| 48668 [alan@di ik t] Well, I hate to propose and effort and run, but it turns out that
+ 48672 [szegedy@t- n] I also started coding, may I join you?
+ 48673 [ben@bl hr co] This seems like this would be an interesting project. Is somebody
  + 48674 [szegedy@t- n] How fit are you in Ruby?
  + 48679 [alan@di ik t] Ok there's now a page at RubyGarden
    + 48681 [szegedy@t- n] I put my initial coding efforts on the page...
    + 48686 [bruce@co ed ] Alan/Christian,
      48688 [alan@di ik t] Always happy to accept more members.  Anything you're itching to code up?
      48689 [bruce@co ed ] Sounds good, I'll start by writing down some strategy ideas and getting them

proper upgrade to 1.7.3
48678 [transami@tr ] so i went ahead and started moving over to 1.7.
48683 [transami@tr ] i did just figure one part of this: i have to apt-get uninstall every
+ 48685 [transami@tr ] on second thought that won't solve my problem. most souce install
+ 48687 [lyle@kn lo y] Extension modules built for Ruby 1.6 are almost guaranteed not to work for
  48690 [rich@in oe h] I have found that most modules are straigtforward to build.
  48691 [transami@tr ] duh! i totally spaced the fact that the compiled libraries would have to

Ruby-Postgres problems
48682 [bruce@co ed ] All,

HT copy a directory structure, and all files to a single director y...
48695 [keuler@po ta] All-
48697 [hal9000@hy e] directory...

Tk Multiselect  File Open Dialog?
48696 [mliang@co .n] I need a file open dialog with a muliselect option within  ruby-TclTk .
48826 [nagai@ai ky ] Although I don't use the newest version of Tcl/Tk,

Re: suggestions to the Ruby community [long]
48698 [gsinclair@so] It's reasonable then to point the question back at you! ;)  If there's a huge
48699 [hal9000@hy e] not

Ruby Manpage (was: Re: suggestions to the Ruby community [long])
48701 [tim@ve et .a] [ snippage ]
+ 48704 [gsinclair@so] Say, thanks!
+ 48762 [gsinclair@so] Guess what?  "The" Cygwin distribution (the one I've got, anyway) has no man

Ruby aesthetics
48705 [vegai@ni .f ] like its clean syntax.
+ 48708 [tim@ve et .a] I had different opinions and experiences with these two languages.
| 48730 [vegai@ni .f ] Thank you, sound reply -- I'll stick with my choice.
| + 48745 [tim@ve et .a] [ snippage ]
| + 48804 [kevin.KAM.pr] That, is a troll Sir.  Which isn't to say that it can't also be a
+ 48712 [x@ic im nk .] On Saturday 31 August 2002 04:16, vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING
+ 48715 [ADATE@kc rr ] At least some of us in this (Ruby) group, including myself, find "economy of
| 48722 [hal9000@hy e] of
+ 48716 [alwagner@tc ] On Saturday 31 August 2002 04:16 am, vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING
+ 48718 [szegedy@t- n] Sounds to be a very fertile remark :)))
+ 48725 [n1k0@ro er .] This isn't slashdot, if you want to start a flame war don't make it so
| 48729 [mark.firesto] I like Muddle for syntax.  It speaks to me.   Ah, ya... you don't want to
+ 48734 [nat.pryce@b1] I've used both Ruby and Python for delivering production applications.
| 48908 [billtj@z. lu] I just want to add that in my opinion, what really make Python so popular
| + 48920 [hal9000@hy e] This is not a flame! :)
| | + 48928 [billtj@y. lu] I am too hoping that we will have this discussion in a friendly
| | | + 48929 [hal9000@hy e] Hmm, I think that at the lowest level (whether C extension or guts of
| | | | 49007 [billtj@z. lu] I completely agree with you.  Probably it is the standard way of
| | | | 49010 [hal9000@hy e] I have heard of the "passing self" feature
| | | | + 49015 [billtj@z. lu] Thanks.  I think I have found the explanation that you referred to.  It is
| | | | + 49100 [paulp@pr sc ] It's a minor syntactic choice that hardly has any large-scale effects
| | | |   49112 [billtj@z. lu] I agree that "@" and "self." are very minor syntactic choice.  Even when
| | | |   + 49115 [dblack@ca dl] I may be misunderstanding this discussion (I don't know Python), but
| | | |   | 49124 [billtj@z. lu] If I am not mistaken, the discussion was that it is equivalent (only a
| | | |   | 49159 [paulp@pr sc ] Python has two separate concepts of attribute-syntax and method call
| | | |   + 49135 [gsinclair@so] "self." is not syntax.  It's using the value of "self" passed into the
| | | |   | + 49137 [mgushee@ha e] No, you can't. You can prevent a module or class from *exporting* a name
| | | |   | | 49140 [vjoel@PA H. ] obj.instance_eval {@x = 1}
| | | |   | | 49145 [gsinclair@so] Certainly.  That instance_eval method is far removed from normal programming
| | | |   | | 49155 [billtj@z. lu] I also appreciate the "always open" class definition very much.  Next to
| | | |   | + 49144 [billtj@z. lu] It seems that we agree on most of the stuff.  I just want to add that,
| | | |   |   49207 [paul@pr sc d] That thread is not about data hiding. It is about fixing the members
| | | |   + 49154 [paulp@pr sc ] I can understand why this would bother some people. It does violate OO
| | | |     + 49161 [szegedy@no p] What I really dislike in Ruby, that the data members are seen
| | | |     | + 49164 [dblack@ca dl] I'm not sure what you mean -- do you mean class variables?
| | | |     | + 49166 [behrends@cs ] Umm, no, it is not. At least the creators of Smalltalk and Eiffel
| | | |     | | 49182 [szegedy@t- n] In C++, you don't have to know the implementation of the base class,
| | | |     | | + 49187 [billtj@z. lu] I think you have a very good point regarding Ruby design.  Although I
| | | |     | | | + 49188 [szegedy@t- n] And even they do, thay can't be sure that some uncalled method does not
| | | |     | | | + 49421 [vjoel@PA H. ] There's one solution in the CShadow module in my cgen package on RAA. If
| | | |     | | + 49260 [behrends@cs ] I am well aware of that. However, as I said, it's a religious issue that
| | | |     | |   49263 [szegedy@no p] But the queue should have private data since its implementation
| | | |     | |   49265 [behrends@cs ] If you have an instance of the queue, then it can only be accessed
| | | |     | |   49268 [szegedy@no p] You pretend that there are two concurrent issues, and one has to
| | | |     | + 49209 [matz@ru y- a] It's in the ToDo list.  Private instance variables will be something
| | | |     | | + 49214 [dan@si he or] You can use a hierarchic storage system for this. Each class (or
| | | |     | | + 49226 [gsinclair@so] I'm not too well versed in the principles of data hiding in inheritance
| | | |     | | + 49243 [szegedy@no p] This seems to be mainly a name problem.
| | | |     | | | + 49244 [matz@ru y- a] Ruby classes/modules can be left unnamed.
| | | |     | | | | 49246 [szegedy@no p] I would encode the id (VALUE) of the class itself in the 1...4 bytes of
| | | |     | | | | 49248 [decoux@mo lo] Probably I've not understood but when you compile the def you don't have
| | | |     | | | | 49252 [szegedy@no p] You undestood correectly.
| | | |     | | | | 49253 [decoux@mo lo] With
| | | |     | | | | 49259 [szegedy@no p] I would modify eval.c where the nodes are evaluated and
| | | |     | | | | + 49261 [torsten.rueg] Moi Christian
| | | |     | | | | + 49262 [decoux@mo lo] Well, I see what you want to do, you even don't need to duplicate the
| | | |     | | | |   49264 [szegedy@no p] Why don't I have to duplicate the subtree?
| | | |     | | | |   49267 [decoux@mo lo] french word, don't ask :-))
| | | |     | | | + 49247 [szegedy@no p] OOps,I meant : "The names of the private data members..."
| | | |     | | + 49271 [pbrannan@at ] 1) Each class has a Hash which maps object id to a table of private
| | | |     | |   + 49274 [decoux@mo lo] What do you do with #instance_variables ?
| | | |     | |   | 49276 [pbrannan@at ] Nothing.  A private instance variable is private; I don't see any reason
| | | |     | |   + 49483 [decoux@mo lo] Yes, not the best
| | | |     | |     49541 [decoux@mo lo] This is a modified version of 1.6.7. There is a problem with 1.7.*
| | | |     | + 49227 [alwagner@tc ] I don't understand what is bad about this.  I typically depend on instance
| | | |     |   49229 [dblack@ca dl] I think I understand the objection (thanks in large part to Holden's
| | | |     |   + 49231 [alwagner@tc ] I suppose what is needed is a good refactoring browser for Ruby.  Then, in the
| | | |     |   | 49245 [szegedy@no p] With your attitude, the objects don't have implementations at all, only
| | | |     |   | 49424 [alwagner@tc ] Well, for starters:  any browser, refactoring or otherwise, is dealing with
| | | |     |   | 49428 [szegedy@t- n] Yes and therefore it is an almost impossible task for it to
| | | |     |   | 49448 [alwagner@tc ] I think there is a cultural/language misunderstanding.  The "unpolite tone"
| | | |     |   | 49453 [szegedy@t- n] I must have been oversensible :)
| | | |     |   | 49463 [gsinclair@so] clarity
| | | |     |   + 49250 [szegedy@no p] No, my problem is that if you coin a new variable name (in this case @thing)
| | | |     + 49173 [billtj@z. lu] Thanks for the comprehensive discussion.  Technically, I don't have any
| | | |       + 49176 [mgushee@ha e] What, are people only allowed to use one language? Are we going to have
| | | |       | + 49180 [billtj@z. lu] Sure, sure, in purely technical arguments, it does not matter what
| | | |       | + 49210 [matz@ru y- a] Thank you for the comment.  I confess I like Python too.
| | | |       + 49183 [paul@pr sc d] But if you use the double-underscores accidental misuse is as impossible
| | | |         49189 [billtj@z. lu] I think we have communicated very well; I agree with all you said.  May I
| | | |         49191 [paul@pr sc d] The consistency of Python code makes me more confident that I can bring on
| | | |         + 49194 [szegedy@t- n] Ruby has nothing to complain about "newbie friendliness"...
| | | |         | 49398 [comp.lang.ru] - - Not really. Ruby has a completely internal thread model that is
| | | |         + 49195 [billtj@z. lu] It seems that we both view Python's code consistency and language
| | | |           + 49198 [paul@pr sc d] Ruby's choice to be like Perl is probably a good idea from a sales point
| | | |           + 49238 [matz@ru y- a] Why do you prefer minimalist way?  I prefer flexibility,
| | | |             49272 [billtj@y. lu] I prefer the minimalist way because it reduces the programmer's mind
| | | |             49293 [matz@ru y- a] That's the point.  I guess you don't have any problem of equivalence
| | | |             + 49312 [paul@pr sc d] I am never happy with natural language metaphors for computer languages.
| | | |             | + 49317 [billtj@y. lu] I think Paul Prescod has said it very well.  Regarding the choice of
| | | |             | + 49321 [dblack@ca dl] Most of what's been mentioned in this thread, though, has to do more
| | | |             | | + 49342 [elderburn@mi] There is also a subtle but I think significant difference in
| | | |             | | + 49611 [billtj@z. lu] In principle I agree with everything that you said.  I myself always use
| | | |             | |   49638 [list@NO PA c] Same?  `unless' isn't defined at the top of ruby sources.
| | | |             | |   49688 [billtj@z. lu] Taking "if" and "unless" as the example, the point to be made is that I
| | | |             | |   + 49692 [dblack@ca dl] Does it have to be all-or-nothing?  Meaning: I don't think it's a
| | | |             | |   | 49713 [billtj@z. lu] Just FYI, the Python way to do the short condition like below is
| | | |             | |   | + 49720 [David.Stagne] Here's my take on it (and one definition for "least surprise")... i want
| | | |             | |   | | + 49732 [szegedy@no p] Just a remark: Ruby has "loop { }" which is the same as
| | | |             | |   | | | 49814 [s_grazzini@h] do forever
| | | |             | |   | | | 49817 [dblack@ca dl] I dunno... I was wondering which was more genuine.  As David S. said,
| | | |             | |   | | + 49735 [michael_s_ca] #define EVER ;;;
| | | |             | |   | | | 49738 [David.Stagne] And every time i look at Ruby, it just gets cooler and cooler. :}  A
| | | |             | |   | | + 49753 [billtj@z. lu] Let me try to pose the question differently.  Suppose there is a new
| | | |             | |   | |   49755 [michael.d.he] And that choice should be strongly influenced by ease of maintainence.
| | | |             | |   | |   49769 [billtj@z. lu] ....which is...?  Probably minimalism ala Python will contribute to ease of
| | | |             | |   | |   49791 [michael.d.he] accurate comments, whitespace and decent names
| | | |             | |   | + 49810 [gsinclair@so] I'm not sure why I bother, but "statement unless condition" is more readable
| | | |             | |   + 49693 [Dave@Pr gm t] There are phrases in French that are very useful, and yet which have
| | | |             | |   | 49705 [billtj@z. lu] Again, French and English have been very well established.  I am not
| | | |             | |   | 49710 [peter@se an ] You are missing a very important point here. Beauty is in the eye of the
| | | |             | |   + 49695 [szegedy@no p] And what about dropping "if" and using only "unless"?
| | | |             | |   | + 49697 [alwagner@tc ] Execellent idea!  Hey?!....we've backed up all the way to assembler.
| | | |             | |   | + 49699 [peter@se an ] Sheffer stroke anyone?
| | | |             | |   | | 49760 [hal9000@hy e] ?? What's that?
| | | |             | |   | | 49765 [mike@st k. o] See http://www.acm.inf.ethz.ch/ProblemSetArchive/B_EU_NERC/1999/c.htm
| | | |             | |   | + 49702 [billtj@z. lu] This is fine, but having both is a different thing.
| | | |             | |   | + 49792 [james@ja es ] Oh, this would be double-plus ungood!
| | | |             | |   |   49825 [hal9000@hy e] Sorry, Ruby doesn't have a
| | | |             | |   + 49696 [peter@se an ] In C the first thing I ever did when writting a program was write
| | | |             | |   + 49808 [gsinclair@so] No, we stop programming in C because it doesn't have "unless".
| | | |             | |   | + 49846 [billtj@z. lu] Come on, Gavin, my previous point is that you can have "unless" in C if
| | | |             | |   | | 49855 [gsinclair@so] Sorry, dry humour ;)
| | | |             | |   | | 49866 [billtj@z. lu] Totally agree.  When I started to convert my network simulator from the
| | | |             | |   | + 49853 [pabs@pa lo r] #define unless(a) if (!(a))
| | | |             | |   |   49859 [gsinclair@so] ;)
| | | |             | |   + 49920 [list@NO PA c] So using something nice we can find in each and every Ruby
| | | |             | |     49994 [billtj@z. lu] The answer is bureaucracy and establishment.  C is stardardized by formal
| | | |             | |     50133 [list@NO PA c] Thank you for also expressing so clearly why we don't use `unless' in
| | | |             | + 49347 [hal9000@hy e] You have a point, but the issue needs to be analyzed further --
| | | |             | + 49389 [matz@ru y- a] I do agree with the aspect of natural language you stated.  But still,
| | | |             |   49590 [billtj@z. lu] I still feel that we are better off without alternatives in a computer
| | | |             |   + 49591 [Dave@Pr gm t] But C has while loops and for loops. It doesn't need these, given an
| | | |             |   | 49599 [szegedy@no p] I had the "luck" to work with a C-purist together on a project. He
| | | |             |   | + 49605 [billtj@z. lu] That's why I drew an "analogy" and not a pure comparison.  C is minimalist
| | | |             |   | | + 49645 [matz@ru y- a] object.  It is even simpler than Python, which has class instance and
| | | |             |   | | + 49677 [peter@se an ] The problem here is 'short code' does not equate to minimalism. A
| | | |             |   | + 49606 [billtj@z. lu] In C it is very difficult to get code consistency, because we cannot even
| | | |             |   + 49639 [gsinclair@so] - Ruby's arrays or C's arrays
| | | |             + 49395 [list@NO PA c] And I don't think anybody had troubles reading that last sentence
| | | + 49000 [elderburn@mi] Jon "mddog" Hall is openly an advocate of Python over perl and of Vim
| | |   49008 [billtj@z. lu] I am really amazed if Ruby is really compared against Java, especially in
| | |   + 49016 [n1k0@ro er .] IMHO, for a language to become standard (like C and C++) it can't be
| | |   | 49048 [elderburn@mi] Agreed.
| | |   + 49047 [elderburn@mi] Oops, my bad. I -meant- that a proper comparison IMO is Ruby as a
| | |   | 49049 [mgushee@ha e] Indeed. And when I started using Linux in 1996, very few would have
| | |   + 49067 [patrick-may@] I don't know if this counts as an "official corporate project".  I
| | + 48963 [matz@ru y- a] * for historycal reason, we can't distinguish tabs and spaces at a
| |   48971 [tim@ve et .a] [ snippage ]
| |   + 48972 [gsinclair@so] If I were designing a language, I would consider enforcing indentation -
| |   | + 49003 [elderburn@mi] While calling procs as foo(x,y) is consistent with other languages, one
| |   | | 49062 [gsinclair@so] [From Kent:]
| |   | | + 49160 [tpeters@in a] You would lose the possibility to call a method without writing
| |   | | | + 49165 [alan@di ik t] Most defs within defs can also be resolved using procs.
| |   | | | | + 49186 [tpeters@in a] This was an error -- nested defs are not lexical closures, as it turns
| |   | | | | + 49224 [gsinclair@so] This was exactly my code that led to Tobias's example!
| |   | | | |   49363 [chr_news@gm ] The (calling) performance of procs is generally worth
| |   | | | + 49221 [gsinclair@so] [From Tobias:]
| |   | | + 49258 [behrends@cs ] If I may suggest something? The natural habitat of a collection of
| |   | |   49358 [chr_news@gm ] Yes, our neurons seem to work on the wave-length ... to make my
| |   | + 49061 [vjoel@PA H. ] This bothered me a little, OUAT (once upon a time :), but not now. I
| |   |   49066 [gsinclair@so] Hey, nice!  I like that.  Although using an iterator would be more
| |   |   49086 [vjoel@PA H. ] def cycle(succ_map=nil, &block)
| |   + 48973 [matz@ru y- a] Perhaps because it is very hard to consider a block by indentation as
| |     + 48987 [gsinclair@so] I believe that the above is not legal Python.  "Naturally", a lambda cannot
| |     | 48999 [mgushee@ha e] Well, map and lambda may not be the best way to illustrate what Python
| |     + 49071 [tim@ve et .a] [ snippage ]
| |       49117 [billtj@z. lu] I agree with you.  One of the attractions of Python is I feel there is
| + 48922 [james@ja es ] Wow. These are two things that would keep me away from *any* language.
| | 48925 [billtj@z. lu] Well, I don't really know, but probably if it is not done the (only) right
| + 48977 [peter@se an ] I've used Python and although I soon got used to this I had a major
|   48988 [billtj@z. lu] Yes, I now recall that the indentation-based syntax sometimes could really
|   48994 [gsinclair@so] Ruby strikes a good balance between minimalism and maximalism.  You need *some*
|   49005 [hal9000@hy e] word
|   49012 [billtj@z. lu] Yap, exactly.  The first time I saw the methods with names "indexes" and
|   49013 [ljz@as as .c] Indeed it has.  Modern English dictionaries (at least American English)
+ 48747 [gsinclair@so] - indentation-as-syntax
| + 48748 [tim@ve et .a] I've never found it difficult to read, and actually was really
| | 48752 [gsinclair@so] Since Perl has braces-as-syntax instead of
| | + 48758 [bruce@co ed ] I like list comprehensions (they're somewhat Haskell-ish), but, as many of my
| | | 48776 [phlip_cpp@ya] But I suspect someone could bottle that cranky syntax up into a function
| | | 48832 [flori@ni e. ] ...
| | + 48778 [tim@ve et .a] put routines should help, namely ']p' and ']P'. Also see
| | + 48809 [behrends@cs ] That calls for a functional abstraction (functional abstraction is
| |   + 48812 [gsinclair@so] That's very nice indeed.  Would there be any support for adding this, or
| |   | 48817 [behrends@cs ] The question is whether it's essential enough for many people to have
| |   | 48819 [gsinclair@so] The same could surely be said of many other features of the Ruby language.
| |   | 48870 [behrends@cs ] Well, I'm not a big fan of aliases. And attr_* is essential -- it is
| |   | 48893 [DDouthitt@cu] ...
| |   | 48898 [mgushee@ha e] oKAY, OKAY, i'M SORRY!
| |   | 48974 [frido@q- of ] Just for the record.
| |   + 48904 [tamills@up .] I must confess to a lack of Ruby guru-ness.  It would be a great tutorial if
| |     + 48910 [chrismo@cl b] if
| |     + 48918 [hal9000@hy e] if
| + 48759 [lucsky@ma .c] - lots of useless '_' everywhere...
|   + 48760 [mgushee@ha e] _foo()        is a (pseudo-) protected method*
|   | 48763 [lucsky@ma .c] You're right, I should have said 'ugly' instead of 'useless', not the
|   + 48777 [phlip_cpp@ya] If you don't delimit one kind of thing you must delimit another. So do you
+ 48769 [list@NO PA c] Many check into Ruby quite a lot, and they like its clean syntax.
threads.html
top