[#796] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...>
> [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
> |I have read the thread and I think this is a pretty bad change. I
Hi,
> > #BEGIN test.rb
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
what about if attr_accessor :foo defined three methods - #foo, #foo=, and
> |What was wrong with having the receiver set the return value though?
Sean Chittenden <[email protected]> writes:
> > f = Foo.new()
>>>>> "J" == J Herre <[email protected]> writes:
On 11 Feb 2003 at 11:13, Sean Chittenden wrote:
[#801] class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@...
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
J.Herre <[email protected]> writes:
Hi --
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 06:52:17 +0900
Hi --
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 03:15 PM, [email protected]
[#851] Alternate GC ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
[#875] OpenSSL for Ruby 0.2.0-pre0 — Michal Rokos <michal@...>
Hi everybody!
[#889] Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
>>>>> "M" == Mauricio Fern疣dez <Mauricio> writes:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 08:42:40PM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "M" == Mauricio Fern疣dez <Mauricio> writes:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:03:47PM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "M" == Mauricio Fern疣dez <Mauricio> writes:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:10:35PM +0900, ts wrote:
Hi,
[#890] String and (repost) MemLeak — Michal Rokos <michal@...>
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579))
> > #BEGIN test.rb
> > str = '<a id="two"/>' # snip XML dtd/doc
> > root = XML::Parser.new().string=(str).root
> > node_set = root.pointer('xpointer(id("two"))')
> > node_set.each{|n| p n}
> > #END test.rb
>
> XML::Parser.class_eval {alias set_string string=}
> root = XML::Parser.new().set_string(str).root
I know how to work around it... doesn't make it "right" though. :)
> > *grump* I'll stop pouting now, but I think this was a step in the
> > wrong direction. -sc
>
> It depends on what user expects. Probably, Assignment would be
> expected to work as assignment in most cases.
What was wrong with having the receiver set the return value though?
I guess I don't understand why this would be a good change on any
level or why the old behavior was changed. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden