Ruby doesn't implement x++ for Fixnum's because ???
in [Ruby]
|
Prev: Thread error "undefined method `keys' for nil:NilClass"
Next: Getting version from PE executables
From: Marnen Laibow-Koser on 8 Nov 2009 17:49 Tony Arcieri wrote: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Florian Aßmann > <florian.assmann(a)email.de>wrote: > >> Gaah, close this thread! ;) >> > > I suppose the whole discussion is moot as Ruby will likely never see a > ++ > operator. > > I was just trying to make clear the limitation wasn't a technical one, > and > further show how a ++ operator could be "Ruby-like" while still > retaining > C/C++/Java-like semantics. And as others have made clear, you are incorrect. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen(a)marnen.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Tony Arcieri on 8 Nov 2009 18:01 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen(a)marnen.org>wrote: > And as others have made clear, you are incorrect. > What exactly is it you think I'm "incorrect" about? -- Tony Arcieri Medioh/Nagravision
From: Joshua Ballanco on 8 Nov 2009 18:51 On Nov 8, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Tony Arcieri wrote: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen(a)marnen.org>wrote: > >> And as others have made clear, you are incorrect. >> > > What exactly is it you think I'm "incorrect" about? I apologize, but I feel the need to interject: http://xkcd.com/386/ ...that is all. - Josh
From: Marnen Laibow-Koser on 8 Nov 2009 19:02 Tony Arcieri wrote: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser > <marnen(a)marnen.org>wrote: > >> And as others have made clear, you are incorrect. >> > > What exactly is it you think I'm "incorrect" about? The last assertion you made about the ++ operator. Read the recent posts from Seebs and others. Make sure you understand them. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen(a)marnen.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Tony Arcieri on 8 Nov 2009 21:40
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen(a)marnen.org>wrote: > The last assertion you made about the ++ operator. Read the recent > posts from Seebs and others. Make sure you understand them. > I read and responded to them. Was there something about my responses you didn't like, aside from my initial confusion with a dangling method from a previously defined class? :) -- Tony Arcieri Medioh/Nagravision |