Prev: [ANN] Money 2.2.0
Next: ruby-prof on windows: strange measured time numbers
From: Claudio Freda on 18 Feb 2010 08:50
Hi, I'm switching from C++ to Ruby, I have a few questions.

1. How come there isn't any "method prototype" feature like the function
prototypes in C++? Like, in c++ I declared just the name of a funcion at
the beginning of a block of code and then I could put the function
anywhere in the program, so it could be called wherever, without
worrying if it had been fully declared or not. Is this possible?

2. I find it awesome that you needn't compile to view the results of
your code; still, i would like to be able to compile my programs to an
executable file for distribution. Is it possible?

3. I still don't get how this whole "gems" thing work. In C++ I used to
load libraries, it seems that in Ruby most of the libraries are loaded
by themselves when needed. When exactly do I need to include other
libraries?
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From: Rob Biedenharn on 18 Feb 2010 09:18
On Feb 18, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Claudio Freda wrote:

> Hi, I'm switching from C++ to Ruby, I have a few questions.
>
> 1. How come there isn't any "method prototype" feature like the
> function
> prototypes in C++? Like, in c++ I declared just the name of a
> funcion at
> the beginning of a block of code and then I could put the function
> anywhere in the program, so it could be called wherever, without
> worrying if it had been fully declared or not. Is this possible?

Sure just do it! Methods only need to exist when then are "called"
and even then you can use the method_missing hook to define them on
the fly if you need to.

>
> 2. I find it awesome that you needn't compile to view the results of
> your code; still, i would like to be able to compile my programs to an
> executable file for distribution. Is it possible?

Look at JRuby's ability to create .class files for the JVM, but you
might want to keep an open mind about whether you *really* need to
compile.

>
> 3. I still don't get how this whole "gems" thing work. In C++ I used
> to
> load libraries, it seems that in Ruby most of the libraries are loaded
> by themselves when needed. When exactly do I need to include other
> libraries?

It's a way to have multiple versions of libraries on your system.
You'll know you need more because something doesn't exist. For
example, there are some useful methods on Date that are only available
if you "require 'date'" in your code. (Not the best example because
that's not a gem, but a standard library, i.e., it comes as part of
Ruby.)

-Rob

Rob Biedenharn http://agileconsultingllc.com
Rob(a)AgileConsultingLLC.com




From: sandeep bupathi on 18 Feb 2010 09:20
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

how to unsubscribe from this mailing list can any one please reply me.

thanks
sandeep

From: Claudio Freda on 18 Feb 2010 12:28
Rob Biedenharn wrote:
> Sure just do it! Methods only need to exist when then are "called"
> and even then you can use the method_missing hook to define them on
> the fly if you need to.

Wait, I explain my problem.
In C++ I would have been able to to this:

void function();
function();
void function() {
cout<<"The function has been executed"
}

And it would still print "The function has been executed"

In ruby instead if I do this:

def method; end

method

def method
print ('The method has been executed')
end

it just prints me nothing; I think it has something to do with ruby's
dynamic definitions.

Just how to achieve the same thing in ruby? (summoning a function that
is declared later in the code)
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From: Jesús Gabriel y Galán on 18 Feb 2010 12:41
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Claudio Freda <ferdil.kiwi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Rob Biedenharn wrote:
>> Sure just do it!  Methods only need to exist when then are "called"
>> and even then you can use the method_missing hook to define them on
>> the fly if you need to.
>
> Wait, I explain my problem.
> In C++ I would have been able to to this:
>
> void function();
> function();
> void function() {
>  cout<<"The function has been executed"
> }
>
> And it would still print "The function has been executed"
>
> In ruby instead if I do this:
>
> def method; end
>
> method
>
> def method
>  print ('The method has been executed')
> end
>
> it just prints me nothing; I think it has something to do with ruby's
> dynamic definitions.
>
> Just how to achieve the same thing in ruby? (summoning a function that
> is declared later in the code)

What Rob wanted to say is that you don't need to declare a function
(method). You just call it, and it has to have been defined before the
call. But be aware that the code inside a method is not executed when
it's parsed, only when the method is called, so you can have this:

irb(main):001:0> def caller
irb(main):002:1> method("a")
irb(main):003:1> end
=> nil
irb(main):004:0> def method(s)
irb(main):005:1> puts s
irb(main):006:1> end
=> nil
irb(main):007:0> caller
a

You can have the definition of caller before the definition of method.
What you can't do is call caller before defining method.

Hope this clears up a bit,

Jesus.

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: [ANN] Money 2.2.0
Next: ruby-prof on windows: strange measured time numbers