[#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))
Hi,
In message "Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579))"
on 03/02/11, Sean Chittenden <[email protected]> writes:
|> to be the same as:
|>
|> f.b = 42
|> i = 42
|
|Egads! Really?
Really.
|That breaks from what the OO paradigm provides you
|with. Try this on for size. Things used to be this way:
|
|i=(f.b=(42))
The evaluated value of assignment in general is its right hand side
expression. Although attribute assignment and slice assignment are
method calls in reality, they are still faking assignment, so that I
felt it must follow the rule of assignment value. When the value of i
after
i=f.b=42
is not 42, I would greatly surprise. PomLA (principle of matz's least
astonishment) applied here.
matz.