[#796] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...>

> [email protected] wrote:

33 messages 2003/02/06
[#798] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/06

Hi,

[#826] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/10

> |I have read the thread and I think this is a pretty bad change. I

[#827] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/10

Hi,

[#828] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/11

> > #BEGIN test.rb

[#829] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/11

Hi,

[#830] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/11

> |What was wrong with having the receiver set the return value though?

[#834] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Matt Armstrong <matt@...> 2003/02/11

Sean Chittenden <[email protected]> writes:

[#835] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/11

> > f = Foo.new()

[#801] class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@...

Hi --

31 messages 2003/02/07
[#802] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/07

Hi,

[#803] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#804] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/07

Hi,

[#805] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#806] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — "J.Herre" <jlst@...> 2003/02/07

[#807] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — Matt Armstrong <matt@...> 2003/02/07

J.Herre <[email protected]> writes:

[#808] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#809] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/02/07

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 06:52:17 +0900

[#810] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#889] Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>

16 messages 2003/02/28
[#892] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — ts <decoux@...> 2003/03/01

>>>>> "M" == Mauricio Fern疣dez <Mauricio> writes:

[#893] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...> 2003/03/01

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 08:42:40PM +0900, ts wrote:

Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0

From: dblack@...
Date: 2003-02-07 21:52:17 UTC
List: ruby-core #808
Hi --

(Replying to two posts here.)

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Matt Armstrong wrote:

> J.Herre <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 08:05 AM, [email protected]
> > wrote:
> >
> >>   class SpecializedString < String
> >>     def to_i(s)
> >>       # specialized overriding of to_i
> >>     end
> >>   end
> >>
> >>   s = SpecializedString.new("12345")
> >>   m = /(\d\d)/.match(s)
> >>   n = m[1].to_i
> >>   p n * 10
> >
> > This regexp change is actually very cool.  I've got some ugly code
> > that I can fix up as a result of this change.
> >
> > FWIW I think your example argues more strongly for adding
> > multi-dispatch to ruby (or maybe just adopting a policy of not

Yikes -- I assure you that's unintentional :-)

> > changing the semantics of well-known methods in subclasses) than for
> > backing out this change.

There's no way to define "well-known" robustly in that context,
though.  Also, even if the semantics weren't changed (I assume you
mean the argument count), presumably the overridden version would do
something different from the String version, so this 1.8.0 shift would
still have an impact.

I can always do:

  n = String.new(m[1]).to_i

but I'm not fond of it.

> At the risk of a "me too" post, I have the same thoughts.  Code should
> be able to do tests for object.kind_of?(String) and expect the methods
> of String to be present with similar semantics.

We're well into "agree to disagree" territory here :-)  I tend to look
at the behavior of Ruby objects as being very in-the-moment.  But in
any case, mainly I'm just wondering what the impetus was for this
particular change to #match (and #scan and #split).


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: [email protected]
work: [email protected]
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav


In This Thread