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: Tony Arcieri on 8 Nov 2009 22:11 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Joshua Ballanco <jballanc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I apologize, but I feel the need to interject: > > http://xkcd.com/386/ > I still find this most appropriate: http://bit.ly/w8WZA -- Tony Arcieri Medioh/Nagravision
From: Phrogz on 8 Nov 2009 22:37 On Nov 8, 12:37 pm, Tony Arcieri <t...(a)medioh.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Tony Arcieri <t...(a)medioh.com> wrote: > > I cannot begin to answer this question because Ruby is doing strange and > > unexpected things here, at least from my perspective... > > Never mind, bar= was still defined because I was reopening the class. Dude, you just about gave me a heart attack. Phewsh - sanity is restored.
From: Gavin Sinclair on 8 Nov 2009 22:48 On Nov 9, 9:44 am, Tony Arcieri <t...(a)medioh.com> wrote: > > 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. If implementing ++ requires changes to the parser, that seems like a pretty technical limitation to me! :) Matter of interpretation? BTW in all your posts on the topic, you don't seem to address pre- increment vs post-incrememt. (Forgive me if I'm wrong.) If Ruby implemented ++ and didn't address that, it wouldn't be C or C++ semantics at all. -- Gavin Sinclair
From: Tony Arcieri on 8 Nov 2009 22:51 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Phrogz <phrogz(a)mac.com> wrote: > Dude, you just about gave me a heart attack. Phewsh - sanity is > restored. > My bad, it will serve as a reminder to double check my work before posting :) -- Tony Arcieri Medioh/Nagravision
From: Tony Arcieri on 8 Nov 2009 23:00
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If implementing ++ requires changes to the parser, that seems like a > pretty technical limitation to me! :) > Assuredly it would require changes to the parser, as "++" presently lexes/parses as "plus (unary+ value)", and that's not to mention how it parses in method definitions. The resulting operation is equivalent to binary +, unless you're using something like Methodphitamine<http://jicksta.com/posts/the-methodphitamine> > BTW in all your posts on the topic, you don't seem to address pre- > increment vs post-incrememt. (Forgive me if I'm wrong.) If Ruby > implemented ++ and didn't address that, it wouldn't be C or C++ > semantics at all. > That's a can of worms I've been trying to avoid, as there are lexing/parsing ambiguities surrounding the combination of both. How do you parse a+++b vs a++++b vs a+++++b? -- Tony Arcieri Medioh/Nagravision |