62941-66151

62710-65057 subjects 63073-65058

loop while
62941 [tim@ba es id] loop while t.gets !~ /[Cc]onnected/
+ 62942 [matt@li ke .] while t.gets !~ /[Cc]onnected/; end
+ 62943 [eban@os ri .] while t.gets !~ /[Cc]onnect/ do end
  62945 [botp@de mo t] cool :-)
  62948 [decoux@mo lo] You have written something like this

euc-jp coding of ruby talk web interface
62944 [fritz.heinri] recently the coding of ruby talk web interface has changed to
62946 [AntiATField_] Is UTF-8 a superset of EUC-JP, that is, including not only the Japanese
62952 [ysantoso@je ] UTF-8 is an encoding for the Unicode character set. EUC-JP is an
62964 [AntiATField_] "at least"...
62994 [ysantoso@je ] Familiarity, habit, and the lack of compelling incentives to
62998 [ysantoso@je ] BTW, ruby accepts UTF-8 strings. Its regex can also operate on UTF-8
63007 [AntiATField_] Which does every 8-bit clean language.
63023 [matz@ru y- a] More than that.  Ruby's regex does handle characters so that the

OSCON Ruby presentations?
62950 [chad@ch df w] have submitted proposals for talks/tutorials at OSCON?  It would be sad to
+ 62985 [ptkwt@sh ll ] The second one isn't directly Ruby related, but if it's accepted I plan to
+ 63010 [matz@ru y- a] Do you want to hear my talk at OSCON?
  + 63012 [pate@ey er a] YES!!!!
  | 63022 [dblack@ca dl] c) is definitely the best of the three possibilities.  July is awfully
  | + 63026 [pate@ey er a] You're probably right, but it can't hurt to dream about another RubyConf
  | + 63068 [chad@ch df w] Agreed here.  Especially in terms of geographic spread.   We've done east
  |   64799 [matz@ru y- a] Since half day or full day tutorial, which enable travel expense
  + 63042 [ptkwt@sh ll ] Sure.
  + 63069 [piers@om a. ] I think people would go a long wa yto hear you talk :-)
    63084 [simon@si on ] I'm talking with Gnat on Friday and will see what I can do; I'm aiming

Questions from a Ruby Newbie (file io and data structures)...
62951 [christopher.] I've decided on a small project to attempt to learn Ruby beyond just flipping
+ 62953 [dblack@ca dl] Here's a way to do this with the Matrix class.  (It assumes
| 62959 [dblack@ca dl] m = Matrix[ *
| 62960 [christopher.] David,
| 62961 [dblack@ca dl] See the new, improved version in my next message....  As for docs,
| 62965 [martindemell] The main difference is that a Matrix is rectangular (an Array is a 1-D
+ 62958 [szegedy@no p] I haven't tested, but it should work.

Fox and Mac OS X
62954 [jim@fr ez .o] Sorry for the intrusion, but I thought someone here may be experiencing
63035 [hisa@im sy o] I tested hello and hello2 in fox/tests. Both result were "Bus
63051 [jim@fr ez .o] Wow, thanks for the info. I must say, I think it is weird

initialize() and C extensions
62955 [tim@ba es id] I'm having a problem with extending TCPSocket, and after some discussion on
+ 62956 [decoux@mo lo] The error message is for ::new not for #initialize
+ 62963 [lyle@us rs s] Look at the source code for the TCPSocket class from Ruby 1.6.8 (in

Use mulit-dim. Arrays? [Questions from a Ruby Newbie (file io and d ata structures)...]
62966 [christopher.] I've got the file IO hammered out. I think I can read each line into a string
+ 62975 [ahoward@fs .] one of the things that i LOVE, LOVE, LOVE about ruby is that it's so easy to
| 62984 [dcarrera@ma ] Thank you for posting that script.  I learned a fair bit from it.
| 63053 [botp@de mo t] [snipped very good reply]
+ 62982 [szegedy@no p] Have not you read my previous mail? I answered all your question with 2 lines of

What objects exist in my namespace?
62968 [christopher.] How can I determine at runtime what objects exist within the namespace of my
62969 [gsinclair@so] See ObjectSpace in ri or Pickaxe.

FileTest.size? vs du -b
62973 [antispam@fa ] I've noticed something curious.  I was throwing together a small script
+ 62974 [lyle@us rs s] 'du' reports the disk usage, or how much space on the disk is allocated
+ 62976 [ahoward@fs .] du -> 'disk usage'
| 62977 [antispam@fa ] Well, what I eventually want to do is have a script that fills CDRs up to
| + 62978 [ahoward@fs .] i'm pretty sure that summing FileTest.size for all files bound for CDR would
| + 62986 [kentda@st d.] Measuring in blocks for the target filesystem would be the correct way.
|   62988 [antispam@fa ] Good idea regarding the blocks.  Thank you for that very helpful link.
+ 66151 [qrczak@kn .o] You can't because on some filesystems files can have physical holes

Aliasing class methods
62979 [google@to pa] I'd like to override File.open so that it automatically searches for a
+ 62980 [decoux@mo lo] You have written an alias for an instance method, for a class method
| 62981 [ahoward@fs .] why does this work with barewords vs. symbols/strings?
| 62983 [decoux@mo lo] alias is a keyword, #alias_method is a method
+ 63039 [gsinclair@so] Guy has answer, I'll expand in case you didn't fully get it, and then
  63233 [google@to pa] Guy & Gavin, thanks for the answer.
  63274 [gsinclair@so] Fair enough.  When you perfect it, can you post the code so I can add

start ruby in java
62987 [per.mikael.l] ...
63086 [flifson@cs u] Have a look at jRuby, a Ruby interpreter written in Java.

pth thread in extension
62989 [parisnight@s] I tried to pth_spawn a thread in an extension library.
62993 [nobu.nokada@] Current implementation is not native thread safe.  There is no

Usaha Bisnis Mandiri (online-offline)
62990 [mandiribash2] Halo rekan netter..

Net::TElnet help
62991 [Greg.Brondo@] Is it possible that in the ruby-installer version of ruby (1.7.3) that
63099 [probertm@NO ] "Brondo, Greg" <Greg.Brondo@allegiancetelecom.com> did say ...
63154 [greg@br nd .] Thanks!  It was a pebkac (problem exists between keyboard and chair).!  I

rubynet-announce digest, Vol 1 #23 - 2 msgs
62992 [rubynet-anno] Send rubynet-announce mailing list submissions to

Perl \G in Ruby regex?
62995 [cwong@am zo ] In Perl, \G matches the end position of the last match.
63006 [nobu.nokada@] \G works in String#gsub(!), #scan and #index.

ping with ruby
62996 [saspurss@li ] How can I do a script in ruby that to do a ping.
+ 62997 [lyle@us rs s] ...
| + 63020 [saspurss@li ] Error
| | 63028 [drbrain@se m] That's not a string, use "192.168.1.1"
| | 63032 [saspurss@li ] It is not good, I have this error if I use "192.168.1.1"
| | 63033 [pate@ey er a] Actually, this is good.  It means that you are actually making ICMP
| | 63034 [saspurss@li ] if by my pc I ping my ip address (192.168.1.1), it's ok.
| | 63043 [eban@os ri .] FAQ
| | 63062 [saspurss@li ] Ok script is ok if I use Net::PingExternal.new.
| | 63098 [djberge@qw s] require "net/pingsimple"
| + 63986 [gminick@un e] <http://raa.ruby-lang.org/list.rhtml?name=icmpmodule>
+ 63018 [rubytalk@bo ] The following source comes from RAA and it's modified by me

Connecting to a database..
62999 [smurdon@dn m] ...
+ 63001 [ysantoso@je ] The big two are ODBC and DBI. I prefer DBI. The ruby-dbi package is at
| 63013 [paul@sn ke n] It won't show you specially how to connect with ADO, but you can find
| 63016 [CRIBBSJ@oa w] By the way, Paul, I wanted to thank you for that article.  I had it by my
| 63017 [paul@sn ke n] Thanks.  Glad it was useful.  By the way, the second edition just came out
+ 63091 [chrismo@cl b] # Here's an ADO example
  63182 [smurdon@dn m] ...

webrick server performance?
63000 [jsuntheimer@] characteritics of webrick servers?  What are the limiting factors?

SEGFAULT : when switching between windows
63009 [jason@pe sa ] I'm getting a segfault after doing some stuff within my FXRuby app, then switching focus to a
+ 63011 [vjoel@PA H. ] Do GC.disable and try to recreate the segfault. It might be a problem
| 63015 [jason@pe sa ] Hmm... that seems to work.  I guess it's possible that disabling garbage-collection simply hid the
| 63019 [vjoel@PA H. ] You're right. The problem is only hidden and will resurface as soon as
| 63027 [jason@pe sa ] Woot!  I've narrowed the problem down to a single line.
+ 63038 [lyle@us rs s] I see that Joel has already responded and you may have a workaround; but
  63063 [jason@pe sa ] Lyle,

program name -> perl's $0
63024 [lists@de on ] Anyone have a reference to all the special variable names? In particular
+ 63025 [dcarrera@ma ] $ cat >example.rb
| 63029 [lists@de on ] Gah, I keep shooting myself in the foot when trying to use it in quotes,
| 63031 [dcarrera@ma ] I don't know of any such list.  The best I can find is this (probably
+ 63030 [gsinclair@so] I'm sure you can find information like that in the Pickaxe.  If not,
| 63037 [cyclists@nc ] Speaking of the Pickaxe, I see that amazon.com is offering used copies for
| 63079 [botp@de mo t] fr my winpc...
+ 63036 [aa204@ac rn ] Have a look in English.rb

Ruby support for PHP
63040 [maxim@ph .n ] Guys,
+ 63080 [botp@de mo t] just do it! It's great really.
+ 63083 [a.bokovoy@sa] / Alexander Bokovoy

List of $foo as of 1.4 (Was: Re: program name -> perl's $0)
63041 [drbrain@se m] Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net

RAA short descriptions
63057 [gsinclair@so] To all RAA package authors,
63186 [lausianne@gm] I agree. As long as there are only a few A's on RAA, it is still

Compiling Ruby 1.6.7 on TRU64 Unix V4.0F
63060 [stufuller@us] ...

$SAFE level mutation for tained classes
63061 [bystr@ma .c ] What is the rationale behind the following change in SAFE level when
+ 63064 [bruce@co ed ] => nil
| 63076 [bystr@ma .c ] Thank you so very much!!! I completely forgot about "send", I replaced
+ 63070 [matz@ru y- a] Method objects are tainted if they retrieved from tainted objects.

Local variables & blocks
63065 [ahoward@fs .] in general, i like the way things work, but occansionally would like to be
+ 63066 [tim@ba es id] I like it. I'm forever defining a variable as nil outside a block so it
+ 63072 [gsinclair@so] puts max    >>> 42
| 63075 [gsinclair@so] puts max    >>>> 42
| + 63087 [batsman.geo@] matz has already explained his plans on this [52440].
| | 63100 [matz@ru y- a] I may drop ':=' part, i.e.
| | + 63103 [ahoward@fs .] so, correct me if i am wrong, but this does not address the need to do
| | | + 63119 [matz@ru y- a] * no other way to make block local variables
| | | | + 63124 [ahoward@fs .] o.k.  i understand.
| | | | | 63125 [vjoel@PA H. ] That's how it works now, isn't it?
| | | | | 63128 [ahoward@fs .] whoa.  to little sleep!  apologies.  that is, of course, how it works now.  i
| | | | | 63129 [martindemell] may act differently since object would now _always_ be defined.  it seems like
| | | | | 63131 [ahoward@fs .] result =
| | | | | + 63133 [martindemell] Yes, but my point was, when doing this, I usually have either object
| | | | | | 63143 [ahoward@fs .] require 'tons_of_stuff'
| | | | | | 63203 [martindemell] But method-level scoping still works as before, so I don't see the
| | | | | | + 63211 [ahoward@fs .] module M
| | | | | | | + 63214 [decoux@mo lo] module always push a new local scope
| | | | | | | | 63218 [ahoward@fs .] but what if you 'include' the module?
| | | | | | | | 63219 [decoux@mo lo] include dont have effect on local variable : local variables are
| | | | | | | | 63223 [ahoward@fs .] i know that's the way it is _now_, i was talking about what would happen if
| | | | | | | + 63263 [matz@ru y- a] Probably you misunderstood "block local variables" either the current
| | | | | | |   63272 [ahoward@fs .] yes. i have confused scope with namespaces, but not entirely i think.
| | | | | | |   63277 [nobu.nokada@] # defined?(x)
| | | | | | |   63282 [ahoward@fs .] right.
| | | | | | + 63480 [jos@ca no k.] Since we're talking about lexical scope here, how about using ``my'' instead
| | | | | + 63418 [B.Candler@po] Yes, but a variable going out of scope is not the same as a variable being
| | | | |   + 63422 [transami@tr ] and foo? that would remain local to the block, but not myvar?
| | | | |   + 63423 [B.Candler@po] Actually I'm not quite sure whether the proposal is to fix that, or not.
| | | | |     + 63428 [decoux@mo lo] If I've well understood you have removed the most important part of this
| | | | |     | 63430 [B.Candler@po] I did. I'm just not really qualified to comment. But I will anyway :-)
| | | | |     | 63442 [transami@tr ] sure you are. i really just needed some feed back to stir my own brain cells.
| | | | |     | 63457 [batsman.geo@] Then again, instead of calling it 'scope' you can call it local
| | | | |     + 63436 [matz@ru y- a] 10.
| | | | |       + 63439 [B.Candler@po] Unfortunately, although I receive ruby-talk in digest form, there are some
| | | | |       | 63482 [decoux@mo lo] * all variables are local except variables found between || which are
| | | | |       | 63485 [B.Candler@po] Thanks, I just wasn't sure of the definition of "shadowing". As far as I can
| | | | |       | 63486 [decoux@mo lo] Probably I'm wrong, but I don't think that it will be possible to turn off
| | | | |       | 63491 [B.Candler@po] But it's not a local variable - it's a formal parameter to a block. At
| | | | |       | 63492 [decoux@mo lo] You have found where is your problem, ruby don't see it like this
| | | | |       | 63495 [B.Candler@po] Ugh! Thanks though, that helps me see how the current behaviour (|x| assigns
| | | | |       | + 63496 [decoux@mo lo] Not really sure but I think that you'll get a warning if you put something
| | | | |       | | 63501 [B.Candler@po] Hmm. Well, that's made me think. I have a suggestion which is even more
| | | | |       | | 63502 [decoux@mo lo] What do you do with Thread and Proc which *need* block local variables ?
| | | | |       | | 63507 [B.Candler@po] Hmm. ISTM that if this is a problem, it will affect Matz's [63100] as well.
| | | | |       | | + 63508 [decoux@mo lo] What is the result if you have different Proc created in the same def, but
| | | | |       | | | 63510 [B.Candler@po] I said threads were still a problem :-)
| | | | |       | | | 63511 [B.Candler@po] Well, you said that the block parameters would be local, shadowing if
| | | | |       | | | + 63512 [decoux@mo lo] See [ruby-talk:63199] http://www.ruby-talk.org/63199
| | | | |       | | | | 63514 [matz@ru y- a] In the current behavior.  'i' will not be block local, so that it will
| | | | |       | | | | + 63516 [ahoward@fs .] i like all of your plan _except_ this.  i'm not a brilliant programmer, but
| | | | |       | | | | | 63530 [matz@ru y- a] Hmm, so what is better behavior do you think?  I think explicit block
| | | | |       | | | | + 63518 [batsman.geo@] This is one of the cases where I really want to be able to create
| | | | |       | | | + 63513 [matz@ru y- a] Block parameters are only way to create block local variables, but
| | | | |       | | + 63509 [matz@ru y- a] No.  Unlike yours, mine still has sort of block local variabls.
| | | | |       | | | + 63519 [ahoward@fs .] insane?  i don't think so to me this is _natural_ as in Cs
| | | | |       | | | | + 63522 [B.Candler@po] Right.
| | | | |       | | | | | + 63523 [B.Candler@po] No, it's not fork: I meant cloning only the local variables (stack frame).
| | | | |       | | | | | + 63629 [B.Candler@po] I think I've at least made a start now.
| | | | |       | | | | |   63644 [jweirich@on ] That's exactly how its done.  The trick is to removed the "me" variable
| | | | |       | | | | |   + 63648 [B.Candler@po] It returns an array of two procs: one which gives you the current value of
| | | | |       | | | | |   | 63653 [jweirich@on ] Yes.
| | | | |       | | | | |   + 63649 [pit@ca it in] thanks for the weird Y fun :-)
| | | | |       | | | | |     63654 [jweirich@on ] Yes, it is the same.  While thinking about the proposed rules for block
| | | | |       | | | | |     + 63660 [B.Candler@po] All this has made look back at the Abelson and Sussman book, and I find
| | | | |       | | | | |     | + 63665 [michael_s_ca] Can someone list a synopsis of the new rules (or have I missed that?)
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | + 63667 [B.Candler@po] def weird1
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | 63668 [B.Candler@po] (1) Block parameters - e.g. |i,j| - are always local to the block,
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | 63671 [gsinclair@so] Please justify why this warning is necessary.  The code you give above
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | 63686 [ms@ia ta e. ] Essentially, the warning ends up saying: The scoping rules are improved
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | 63693 [decoux@mo lo] You don't think that it exist a problem when someone ask for warnings
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | + 63698 [B.Candler@po] I was asking for something different, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | | + 63699 [B.Candler@po] Oh and just to be clear, I'm not asking for any sort of data-flow analysis;
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | | + 63701 [matz@ru y- a] But I still hate shadowing, strong enough to raise warning.
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | |   63707 [B.Candler@po] I think we'd all be reasonably happy with this warning as long as we
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | |   63724 [nobu.nokada@] Although I agree that shadowing is one of the worst manners, it
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | |   + 63725 [matz@ru y- a] Example?
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | |   | 63728 [nobu.nokada@] foo = 0
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | |   + 63730 [ahoward@fs .] why such strong feelings?
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | | + 63700 [ms@ia ta e. ] Is that not why we have -w? Use it and you get extra guidance in the
| | | | |       | | | | |     | | + 63672 [bob.news@gm ] The proposed new rule is that a variable introduced in a block (other than
| | | | |       | | | | |     | |   + 63682 [B.Candler@po] Where "the enclosing scope" means the entire enclosing method. So if you
| | | | |       | | | | |     | |   | 63683 [B.Candler@po] That's something I've been meaning to ask for: please can ruby -w generate a
| | | | |       | | | | |     | |   + 63713 [nobu.nokada@] nil doesn't have method `+'.
| | | | |       | | | | |     | |     63743 [bob.news@gm ] <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| | | | |       | | | | |     | |     + 63749 [nobu.nokada@] It looks better as an example.
| | | | |       | | | | |     | |     + 63754 [dblack@ca dl] def andy_summers(*args)
| | | | |       | | | | |     | + 63670 [matz@ru y- a] There will be provided a way to use block local variables, like local
| | | | |       | | | | |     + 64913 [thh@io oc .n] ...
| | | | |       | | | | + 63531 [matz@ru y- a] Insane for languages like Ruby which do not have explicit declaration.
| | | | |       | | | |   63539 [qrczak@kn .o] For me it's a flaw of a model if it requires local variables to be
| | | | |       | | | + 63548 [pit@ca it in] Don't be so harsh to yourself! Nobody's perfect. I like your proposed
| | | | |       | | |   63550 [matz@ru y- a] I'd made it as I proposed this time, I think.  The current design is
| | | | |       | | + 63515 [ahoward@fs .] this is called fork, and ipc is neither fun nor portable.
| | | | |       | + 63497 [batsman.geo@] I think matz planned to use the implicit ':=' for block-locals and '='
| | | | |       |   63499 [decoux@mo lo] Yes, see [ruby-talk:52462]
| | | | |       + 63441 [gsinclair@so] Sorry for being so dense.  Can you confirm the propsed output of the
| | | | |         63450 [matz@ru y- a] Sorry for being terse.  Ask me anything if you have question.
| | | | |         + 63451 [B.Candler@po] Then it seems that your 'scope' object is really just the (implicit) stack
| | | | |         + 63473 [gsinclair@so] That's good; I like it!
| | | | + 63156 [gsinclair@so] This makes it the same, scope-wise, as
| | | | | + 63159 [pbrannan@at ] void foo() {
| | | | | | + 63161 [gsinclair@so] Now *that* is surprising!  I assumed that the braceless (one-line)
| | | | | | | 63162 [ljz@as as .c] And just to make the point even clearer: in C, braces define a new scope
| | | | | | + 63164 [ahoward@fs .] this is precisely why i don't like that in
| | | | | |   63165 [dim@co eb tc] seems
| | | | | |   63166 [ahoward@fs .] perl is incredibly flexible - you can bend the barrel right around and shoot
| | | | | |   63167 [dim@co eb tc] that
| | | | | |   63168 [gsinclair@so] You misinterpreted.  This discussion is about exporting specified
| | | | | |   63169 [dim@co eb tc] seems
| | | | | + 63204 [martindemell] That is almost precisely the reason I like the change - it lets you
| | | | + 63194 [kjana@dm la ] # until here, there's no foo.
| | | | | 63199 [matz@ru y- a] Yes.  You will need to introduce block local variables explicitly, for
| | | | + 63756 [dblack@ca dl] I know I'm joining this thread rather late, but I have a minority
| | | |   + 63760 [pbrannan@at ] Just to be clear, I think what we want is the ability to write blocks
| | | |   + 63803 [B.Candler@po] (a) make _all_ assignments in blocks block-local; that would make it
| | | |     + 63804 [dblack@ca dl] Yes, I was expressing concern about precisely that effect :-)
| | | |     | + 63819 [B.Candler@po] i = 0
| | | |     | | + 63821 [decoux@mo lo] How many def have you written in ruby which has a "big gap" ?
| | | |     | | + 63847 [dblack@ca dl] But the whole idea of a 'throw-away' name is that you *know* (because
| | | |     | |   63849 [bob.news@gm ] <dblack@candle.superlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| | | |     | + 63820 [B.Candler@po] I had another thought. It would be wonderfully consistent if *all* variables
| | | |     + 63823 [bob.news@gm ] "Brian Candler" <B.Candler@pobox.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| | | |     + 63828 [batsman.geo@] Some sugar?
| | | + 63135 [rpav@nw in .] OK, this may seem an odd set of quotes, but I have a question.  What
| | |   63145 [ahoward@fs .] 'export x'
| | + 63104 [pbrannan@at ] def foo(&block); block.call; end
| | | 63117 [matz@ru y- a] No.  The role of idenfiers are fixed at compile time by appearance
| | + 63121 [martindemell] I like this - I find myself defining a variable simply so that it'll
| | + 63196 [bob.news@gm ] Just to make sure: From what I read in this thread there are quite some
| |   63200 [matz@ru y- a] Describe your feeling and ideas.  This is why I post.  What kind of
| |   + 63213 [ahoward@fs .] please also see prior threads.
| |   | 63262 [matz@ru y- a] I've read "export" stuff.  But it's a matter of policy.
| |   | 63271 [ahoward@fs .] i expect you have thought about this more than i.
| |   + 63320 [bob.news@gm ] "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| |   | 63335 [matz@ru y- a] But these "most languages" have declaration.  So Ruby can (and does)
| |   | 63352 [bob.news@gm ] "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| |   | + 63354 [matz@ru y- a] Unfortunately, wrong, even in the current behavior.
| |   | | + 63362 [ahoward@fs .] to clarify (for my sake), vairables are _always_ resolved lexically and _never_
| |   | | | 63395 [matz@ru y- a] Yes.  Variables defined in eval() can only be seen from eval().
| |   | | + 63551 [bob.news@gm ] "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| |   | |   63552 [matz@ru y- a] You're correct.  Thank you for taking time to understand me.
| |   | |   63558 [bob.news@gm ] "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| |   | |   63560 [matz@ru y- a] nil.  Right again. ;-)
| |   | |   + 63564 [bob.news@gm ] "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| |   | |   + 63568 [ichimal@fe i] I think, it should be a first-class special value like #<non-initialized>.
| |   | |     63569 [matz@ru y- a] Hmm, "nil" is a special value for uninitialized slot.
| |   | |     63570 [ichimal@fe i] If #<non-initialized> were newly established, what value can I get from
| |   | |     + 63578 [bob.news@gm ] <ichimal@fenix.ne.jp> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| |   | |     + 63585 [matz@ru y- a] I don't know, because I see no need for new #<non-initialized>.
| |   | |       + 63587 [ichimal@fe i] nil and false.
| |   | |       | 63590 [matz@ru y- a] Hmm, do you mean #<non-initialized> value should be true?
| |   | |       | 63634 [ichimal@fe i] What's #<undef> in R5RS?
| |   | |       | 63638 [matz@ru y- a] Yes.
| |   | |       | 63663 [ichimal@fe i] In Scheme, unspecific value is just (implement depend) unspecific value.
| |   | |       | 63669 [matz@ru y- a] Hmm, this is interesting issue.  If you're OK, shall we discuss at the
| |   | |       | 63746 [ichimal@fe i] I'm Okay.
| |   | |       | 63748 [matz@ru y- a] OK, let's move.  Honestly, it's kinda hard for me to discuss.
| |   | |       + 63588 [transami@tr ] this is akin to NACK but for variables instead of methods (?), see Ruby mail
| |   | |         63595 [ahoward@fs .] the entire idea of a non-initialized variable is impossible without separate
| |   | |         63596 [transami@tr ] puts x  #--> undefined local variable or method 'x' for....
| |   | |         63612 [ahoward@fs .] wasn't directly solely at you! ;-)  just thought i'd point that out!
| |   | + 63366 [batsman.geo@] You can write
| |   + 63370 [batsman.geo@] I think I preferred the solution with ':='. Even though I was reluctant
| + 63096 [ahoward@fs .] elimnating methods is _very_ important to keep things fast too, not just to
|   63105 [pbrannan@at ] From what I've seen, the Ruby Way to make things fast seems to be to
+ 63088 [bob.news@gm ] Hm, don't know. I can see the benefits but personally I prefer it the other
threads.html
top