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: David A. Black on 11 Nov 2009 07:51 Hi -- On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, RichardOnRails wrote: > Hi David, > > First, Thank you for The Well-Grounded Rubyist. I study like other > pour over scriptures or the Koran. Your topics are well chose, > beautifully explicated. And Manning adding typesetting that enhanced > the your work. Thanks! > I started this thread because some of your comments on page 54, e.g. > "The un-reference ..." were a blemish among your excellent analyses. Oh dear -- the whole thread is my fault? :-) > The fact that Robert Klemme, whom I also respect highly as a Rubyist, > agrees with you gives me pause. > > But nevertheless, I maintain that my corrected post of today refutes > such claims as "... any object that's represented as an immediate > value is always the same object." I'm afraid I don't see the refutation, but as per my previous post, the immediate value thing is only part of the picture. > Russel & Whitehead dealt with this > kind of issue perhaps a century ago when the defined the first Natural > Number, 1, as "the set of all sets that are in one-to-one > correspondence with the set containing the Null Set." Plato dealt with > this in The Parable of the Caves" with the claim that allegedly > concrete things were merely reflections of the "real" objects. Well... any given system of symbolic representation may or may not take a Platonic view of things. Plato's allegory is of course of great importance in the history of thought, but it doesn't really dictate that 2000+ years later, there can't be a computer language with identifiers housing immediate values :-) > I'm not clamoring for a Ruby implementation. I only posted my > analysis on this issue to get other people's opinions. And I find it > hard compose a mistake free exposition, e.g. the last code lines in > yesterday evening's post: > > a = 2**30-1; show (a) => Got 1073741823; class = Fixnum; object_id > = 2147483647; v >> 1 = 1073741823 > a = 2**30; show (a) => Got 1073741824; class = Bignum; object_id = > 22737670; v >> 1 = 11368835 > > should have read: > > a = 2**30-1; show (a) => Got 1073741823; class = Fixnum; object_id > = 2147483647; v >> 1 = 1073741823 > show(a.pp) => Got 1073741824; class = Bignum; object_id = > 22738520; v >> 1 = 11369260 # Of course, "v >> 1" is irrelevant > here > > to make the point that "pp" crossed the Fixnum/Bignum boundary > smoothly. You'll see a lot of people cutting-and-pasting entire shell sessions, like this: $ cat myfile.rb ... code here ... $ ruby myfile.rb ... output here ... which is a good way to ensure that your output is from your input. I rely a lot (depending on the example) on pasting things in and out of irb. > Bottom line: Please keep up you great work! I appreciate it very > much! I'll do me best :-) David -- The Ruby training with D. Black, G. Brown, J.McAnally Compleat Jan 22-23, 2010, Tampa, FL Rubyist http://www.thecompleatrubyist.com David A. Black/Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)
From: Aldric Giacomoni on 19 Nov 2009 10:48 Seebs wrote: > On 2009-11-09, Tony Arcieri <tony(a)medioh.com> wrote: >> The only reasons it's impossible are cultural, not technical. If you think >> there's a valid technical reason why it's "impossible" to implement perhaps >> you'd care to state it. > > It's impossible to implement as a method. You could introduce it as > syntactic sugar, but it's not so clear that this would be worth the > trouble. In particular, incrementing is inefficient in Ruby because > it would involve creating many new objects to iterate. > > -s http://jicksta.com/posts/superators-add-new-operators-to-ruby Well, with -that-, we definitely can add '++' as syntactic sugar for succ. I'm sorry? I'm beating a what? I can't hear you, there's too many flies buzzing around the carcass. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Gavin Sinclair on 19 Nov 2009 18:10 On Nov 20, 2:48 am, Aldric Giacomoni <ald...(a)trevoke.net> wrote: > > http://jicksta.com/posts/superators-add-new-operators-to-ruby > Well, with -that-, we definitely can add '++' as syntactic sugar for > succ. Phew! It was about time someone added to this thread! ;)
From: Marnen Laibow-Koser on 19 Nov 2009 18:43 Gavin Sinclair wrote: > On Nov 20, 2:48�am, Aldric Giacomoni <ald...(a)trevoke.net> wrote: >> >> http://jicksta.com/posts/superators-add-new-operators-to-ruby >> Well, with -that-, we definitely can add '++' as syntactic sugar for >> succ. > > Phew! It was about time someone added to this thread! ;) You mean thread++ ? :D Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen(a)marnen.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Tony Arcieri on 19 Nov 2009 19:49
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen(a)marnen.org>wrote: > You mean thread++ ? :D > NO! thread += 1 thread++ isn't Ruby-like. DUH! btw if anyone wants to discuss this in person I'm wandering around at RubyConf :) -- Tony Arcieri Medioh/Nagravision |