=begin On 02.05.10 01:56, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > The last evaluated expression in this case is "i < 3", so the loop > statement would have the return value of false value, even if it > would return the *last* value. So, should...murphy (Kornelius Kalnbach)
=begin On 19.04.10 05:36, Eric Hodel wrote: > RDoc now maps :: to class methods and # and . to instance methods > when cross-referencing. Mapping Foo.bar to Foo#bar is a strange decision, in my view. Foo.bar should be equal to Foo::...murphy (Kornelius Kalnbach)
=begin On 18.04.10 16:10, Benoit Daloze wrote: > Sure, but that's why I showed that any variable which is also a method > in a scope can cause this problem. I agree that it's a problematic part of Ruby's syntax. I think it comes par...murphy (Kornelius Kalnbach)
=begin On 17.04.10 20:26, Benoit Daloze wrote: > I ran a few times in this bug, while using some "p :done"(and having > a local var p) to trace the program execution quickly. Translated into a Ruby style guide haiku:
=begin On 18.04.10 07:07, Caleb Clausen wrote: > The small improvement in readability didn't seem worth the trouble to > me. But to my surprise, nobu just went ahead and implemented it. I'm > still wondering about the general case. ...murphy (Kornelius Kalnbach)
=begin On 18.04.10 04:34, Caleb Clausen wrote: > In my judgment, this would be too much additional complication in an > area of the parser/lexer that's already extremely squirelly. Ironically, it could still make the language easier ...murphy (Kornelius Kalnbach)
=begin On 18.04.10 02:23, Benoit Daloze wrote: > I can understand easily operators can be confusing for the parser, but I > didn't know ':' is an operator. as in a ? b : c. =end murphy (Kornelius Kalnbach)
=begin On 11.04.10 16:08, Yusuke Endoh wrote: > You say, library must not use an exception for internal implementation? > The convension is uneasy and too uncomfortable for library authors. > > In old convension, an exception might...murphy (Kornelius Kalnbach)
=begin On 02.04.10 08:59, Joel VanderWerf wrote: > Agreed, if it's there it should be exposed. But still not sure why it's > there? The name is awkward, too...I keep confusing it with DATA. Just me?
=begin On 23.03.10 19:10, Roger Pack wrote: > My personal preference would be __DIR__ ...which suggests that the method is a magic constant like __FILE__. While funny, I don't think it's a good idea.