A
ara.t.howard
Another wish list item would be being able to use "a {var_name}"
instead
of "a #{var_name}" I hate that extra pound, as it reminds me of
perl
"a %s" % var_name
a @ http://codeforpeople.com/
"a %s" % var_name
a @ http://codeforpeople.com/
A
ara.t.howard
probably not - unless you wanted to introduce ';'s to ruby too:
cfp:~ > cat a.rb
x = 1
result =
x / 4 * 2 /
42
p result
def x(*re) 'forty-two' end
result =
x / 4 * 2 /
42
p result
result =
x(/ 4 * 2 /)
42
p result
cfp:~ > ruby a.rb
0
0
"forty-two"
a @ http://codeforpeople.com/
R
Roger Pack
Dang that does seem ambiguous then. Ahh well.
My latest wish is that
unexpected $end, expecting kEND
would say something less cryptic--like "unexpected $end (end of file)
expected word "end" "
R
Rick DeNatale
Assuming you mean Range#to_a (i.e. an instance rather that class
method) I don't think it's becoming obsolete.
There was talk some time ago when Matz changed 1.9 to use to_splat
instead of to_a that ranges wouldn't be splatted, e.g.
a = *(1..3)
In 1.8 this sets a to [1,2,3] whereas at one time in 1.9 it was to
have set it to [(1..3)].
But testing with a fairly recent irb1.9 this seems to be one of the
changes which has been backed out of 1.9.
R
Roger Pack
I wish... that Range.to_a wouldn't become obselete, as it seems quite useful
It throws warnings as deprecated, for some reason. I like it!
And my latest wish
variables that can end in ?
Oh wishing star...
Take care all!
-Roger
It throws warnings as deprecated, for some reason. I like it!
And my latest wish
variables that can end in ?
Oh wishing star...
Take care all!
-Roger
D
Damien Merenne
Hello,
Mmm I'd like that too.
Regards,
Mmm I'd like that too.
Regards,
R
Rick DeNatale
I don't think so:
shadowfax:~/Documents/terralien/dltsolutions/enrollnow rick$ ruby1.9 -v
ruby 1.9.0 (2007-10-25 patchlevel 0) [i686-darwin8.10.2]
shadowfax:~/Documents/terralien/dltsolutions/enrollnow rick$ ruby1.9
-we '(1..3).to_a'
shadowfax:~/Documents/terralien/dltsolutions/enrollnow rick$ ruby1.9
-we 'p (1..3).to_a'
-e:1: warning: (...) interpreted as grouped expression
[1, 2, 3]
shadowfax:~/Documents/terralien/dltsolutions/enrollnow rick$ ruby1.9
-we 'p((1..3).to_a)'
[1, 2, 3]
M
Marc Heiler
"unless you wanted to introduce ';'s to ruby too:"
Hopefully a mandatory ; on the end of each line, as is the case with
perl,
will NEVER appear in Ruby ... but then again who would wish for bad
stuff ;-)
"variables that can end in ?"
I dont like this, mostly because we can use method calls such as
dragon.hungry?
And I would not want to have a variable inside the dragon that
has something like ... i dont know
hungry? = true
I'd rather have a variable that would state
is_hungry = true
instead and then query if the dragon is hungry by using either
is_hungry? or hungry?
(By the way, an accessor_read that can query variables with ? on the end
would
be nice in std ruby too... I am not complaining at all, ruby is so
flexible,
I already use this for my code and i love it, like @file.readable? that
queries a "special" reader accessor... i think it reads nicer than
@file.readable but this is just my opinion)
But I know what i would like to REALLY have:
* real keyword arguments in 2.0
Hopefully a mandatory ; on the end of each line, as is the case with
perl,
will NEVER appear in Ruby ... but then again who would wish for bad
stuff ;-)
"variables that can end in ?"
I dont like this, mostly because we can use method calls such as
dragon.hungry?
And I would not want to have a variable inside the dragon that
has something like ... i dont know
hungry? = true
I'd rather have a variable that would state
is_hungry = true
instead and then query if the dragon is hungry by using either
is_hungry? or hungry?
(By the way, an accessor_read that can query variables with ? on the end
would
be nice in std ruby too... I am not complaining at all, ruby is so
flexible,
I already use this for my code and i love it, like @file.readable? that
queries a "special" reader accessor... i think it reads nicer than
@file.readable but this is just my opinion)
But I know what i would like to REALLY have:
* real keyword arguments in 2.0
R
Roger Pack
* real keyword arguments in 2.0
Not sure what those are.
My latest wish, oh wishing star...
(I think something in osx does this)
begin_funcion_name param1 keep_going_function_name param2 end
# so you can have your function calls read really like English
run_if_queue_below 24 every 24 seconds
yeah
Stay well.
-Roger
R
Roger Pack
and the ability to parse .25 as a float, instead of 0.25
S
Suraj Kurapati
Marc said:
Do you mean that attr_accessor treats symbols with a question mark
differently by creating a "symbol_without_question=" writer method and a
"symbol_with_question" reader method? For example:
class Foo
attr_acessor :readable? # defines Foo#readable= and Foo#readable?
end
f = Foo.new
f.readable? #=> nil
f.readable = 99
f.readable? #=> 99
This would be very useful, because it would make the following
workaround obsolete:
class Foo
attr_writer :readable # only defines Foo#readable=
def readable?
@readable
end
end
Oh wishing star, here is another wish for you!
Thanks for your consideration.
T
Todd Benson
Do you mean that attr_accessor treats symbols with a question mark
differently by creating a "symbol_without_question=" writer method and a
"symbol_with_question" reader method? For example:
class Foo
attr_acessor :readable? # defines Foo#readable= and Foo#readable?
end
f = Foo.new
f.readable? #=> nil
f.readable = 99
f.readable? #=> 99
This would be very useful, because it would make the following
workaround obsolete:
class Foo
attr_writer :readable # only defines Foo#readable=
def readable?
@readable
end
end
Oh wishing star, here is another wish for you!
Thanks for your consideration.
I would think that you would want to maintain the ? behavior across
the board. In other words, it should return TrueClass or FalseClass
objects.
Todd
S
Suraj Kurapati
Todd said:
Why? In Ruby, anything that is neither nil nor false is the same as
true... I cannot express how many thousands of times this convention
has simplified my code and eased my life! Furthermore, like method
aliases, this convention falls in line with Ruby's TIMTOWDI philosophy.
So, forcing question-mark methods to return only 'true' and 'false'
feels far too restrictive and seems to follow a
there's-only-one-way-to-do-it philosophy IMHO.
J
James Britt
Suraj said:
Forcing would be bad, but there is the convention that foo? returns true
vs. false, not something vs. nil.
If a foo? method happens to be returning something other than TrueClass,
and you start depending on that quirk, you run the risk that a later
version of that method returns some other non-nil/non-false object.
It's similar to the use of foo!. You don't *have* to use the bang only
when your method is doing something destructive, but you'd be foolish
not to follow the conventions.
--
James Britt
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally
for machines to execute."
- H. Abelson and G. Sussman
(in "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs)
T
Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists
def begin_funcion_name( param1, qualifier1, param2, qualifier1) {
}
run_if_queue_below 24, :every, 24, :seconds
R
Rick DeNatale
There is no such convention in Ruby.
There ARE cases in the ruby language where a x? returns something
other than true or false
defined?(a) # => nil
a = 1
defined?(a) # => "local-variable"
By the way, you really meant true instead of TrueClass right?
The real danger is that you start testing 'truth' with expressions
like x == true or x == false. As long as you don't do that and simply
use the value in conditional expressions like
if x ...
x ? ... : ...
and the like you'll be fine.
You rarely need an actual true/false value in Ruby.
For more on this see
http://www.therailsway.com/2007/8/1/dangers-of-cargo-culting
S
Sean O'Halpin
Do you mean that attr_accessor treats symbols with a question mark
differently by creating a "symbol_without_question=" writer method and a
"symbol_with_question" reader method? For example:
class Foo
attr_acessor :readable? # defines Foo#readable= and Foo#readable?
end
f = Foo.new
f.readable? #=> nil
f.readable = 99
f.readable? #=> 99
This would be very useful, because it would make the following
workaround obsolete:
class Foo
attr_writer :readable # only defines Foo#readable=
def readable?
@readable
end
end
Oh wishing star, here is another wish for you!
Thanks for your consideration.
Here you go (wouldn't use it myself though):
class Module
# get a unique alias
method_name = '__attr_accessor__#{rand(123456789)}__#{Time.now.to_i}'
alias_method method_name, :attr_accessor
define_method :attr_accessor do |name|
name = name.to_s
if name[-1] == ??
sname = name[0..-2]
attr_writer sname
define_method "#{name}" do
instance_variable_get "@#{sname}"
end
else
send(method_name, name)
end
end
end
class Foo
attr_accessor :readable?
attr_accessor :bar
end
f = Foo.new
f.readable? # => nil
f.readable = 99 # => 99
f.readable? # => 99
f.bar = 42 # => 42
Regards,
Sean
T
Todd Benson
No convention in Ruby, but in Ruby programmers.
Yes, that's great! No forcing, but just realizing that for your code
to work with others' requires some establishment of convention. Ruby
is a weird and happy monster that way. You can do almost anything
with it, but then when you want to do something with it, you start
setting down ground rules in order to play well with others.
Well, that's kind of just semantics. James may have meant an instance
of TrueClass, but didn't word it that way.
a=nil
(a==a).class
#=> TrueClass
To newbies, this statement doesn't make much sense, but I do
understand where you're coming from. Newbies should definitely learn
that in a conditional, thinks are not always what they seem (and I
love it!).
a = 1
b = 2
a if b
I didn't know this acquired the euphemism "cargo-culting". I still
thought it was called "script kiddies". I must be getting old
Todd
R
Roger Pack
Clever. I like it.
-Roger
J
James Britt
Todd said:
Right. And in a TIMTOWTDI language is can amount to the same thing.
Exactly. Yes, there are exceptions, and yes that can be handy, but
(culturally speaking) treating foo? as an attribute accessor is probably
a mistake because you may be relying on a quirk of implementation.
Since *every* method could be used as a boolean value, the use of '?'
should be reserved to expressed a particular meaning, i.e., all this
method assures you is that you'll get a return value than can be
interpreted as true or false, and is not meant to be an object accessors.
Yes, thank you. I meant not simply true (i.e., something that is not
nil), but "only" true (and not some particular object you are relying on
to have a secondary value).
--
James Britt
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally
for machines to execute."
- H. Abelson and G. Sussman
(in "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs)