Lyndon Samson wrote:
Crikey, I woke up one morning and ruby-talk was a dictatorship...
"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."
The various Ilias threads are funnier if you envision the "Argument Sketch" from Flying Circus while reading them...
--
Alan Garrison
Cronosys, LLC <http://www.cronosys.com>
Phone: 216-221-4600 ext 308
You find my 3 questions within the original message of this thread.
Could you please have the courtesy to reply there?
* Who has written the "ri Class" documentation?
I wrote the original figure. The documentation is not by me, but by
the English doc team members.
* Can I expect an apology for this false documentation?
I'm not sure how much useful an apology can be, but you can. I feel
sorry that you've misunderstood.
I don't know "David Alan Black".
But: not he should 'pursuade' you to add such a method.
Rationality should do.
You don't have to worry about him to force me to add it without
rationality.
matz.
In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)" on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:04:56 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> writes:
Hi,
In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)" on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:25:23 +0900, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
Besides seeing no real need, such method is highly connected to the
current implementation. Future Ruby (or different implementation of
Ruby interpreter) may want to choose other strategy, for example,
creating a temporary class-like object to manipulate singleton
methods, then update internal object structure according to that
class-like object. Under the implementation like this, a method to
obtain singleton class has no meaning.What would: (class << obj; self; end) give you if there's no
singleton class?
In that case, it would give you a (perhaps one-time only) class-like
object described above.
matz.
"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"
On 4/22/05, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
Try it: "Ilias Lazaridis is right".
It's not so difficult, even for you.
The first step is: "Ilias Lazaridis is right, at least with point b)"
go on.
--
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
Ilias Lazaridis, April 22:
Try it: "Ilias Lazaridis is right".
Man, I'm giving it my best, but it keeps on coming out as "Ilias
Laziridis is wrong", "Ilias Laziridis is wrong",
nikolai
--
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/\!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}
I thought you wanted to close the thread?
Rob
On 4/22/05, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
Customizes Object
obj.customizing_class
obj.cclass
obj.custom
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]sso = Specializing Singleton Object
specializing: possibly confronting with existent OO terminology
ISBO = Instance Specific Behaviour Object
behaviour: not only (structure is modified,too)
dvto = Dedicated Virtual Table Object
dvco = Dedicated Virtual Class Object
dvc = Dedicated Virtual Class
Virtual
dsc = dedicated singleton class
sco = singleton class object
"singleton class" => rejected [has specific meaning]
asco = attached singleton class object
"singleton instance" = the one and only instance
"singleton method" = a method, exclusively for one instance
"singleton class" = a class, exclusively for one instance
conflicting with existent definitin: "class which can have only one instance".
obj.exclusive_singleton_class
obj.exclusive_class
obj.exclassobj.xclass
x class (x=not known yet what it is)
obj.xclass
=> xclass
term accepted.
Customizes Object
obj.customizing_class
obj.cclass
obj.custom
..
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>You find my 3 questions within the original message of this thread.
>Could you please have the courtesy to reply there?* Who has written the "ri Class" documentation?
I wrote the original figure. The documentation is not by me, but by
the English doc team members.
where can I find a list of the english doc team members?
I would like to know who is responsible for this text.
* Can I expect an apology for this false documentation?
I'm not sure how much useful an apology can be, but you can.
you are not the direct responsible (although you should have verified this critical documentation part).
I feel sorry that you've misunderstood.
If you really feel sorry, than you should possibly reply to my initial message and comment what i've worked-out within the last 2 weeks.
As you see, the community has problems to accept a very simple fact:
the "ri Class" documentation is defective.
>I don't know "David Alan Black".
>
>But: not he should 'pursuade' you to add such a method.
>
>Rationality should do.You don't have to worry about him to force me to add it without
rationality.
I don't worry about this.
You should trust your userbase.
And let them decide the power which they will use (or abuse).
matz.
..
In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)" > on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:04:56 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> writes:
Hi --
Hi,
>> Besides seeing no real need, such method is highly connected to the
>> current implementation. Future Ruby (or different implementation of
>> Ruby interpreter) may want to choose other strategy, for example,
>> creating a temporary class-like object to manipulate singleton
>> methods, then update internal object structure according to that
>> class-like object. Under the implementation like this, a method to
>> obtain singleton class has no meaning.
>
>What would: (class << obj; self; end) give you if there's no
>singleton class?In that case, it would give you a (perhaps one-time only) class-like
object described above.
So....
x = class << obj; self; end
y = class << obj; self; end
x and y would be two class-like objects, instead of one class? Also,
what exactly is a class-like object?
Maybe there should be singleton modules instead of singleton
classes.... (That would also solve the problem of "singleton class"
having two meanings.)
David
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)" > on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:25:23 +0900, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
Bill Guindon wrote:
On 4/22/05, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
Try it: "Ilias Lazaridis is right".
It's not so difficult, even for you.
The first step is: "Ilias Lazaridis is right, at least with point b)"
go on.
"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"
another babbler.
the other one provides at least original babbling.
..
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis, April 22:
Try it: "Ilias Lazaridis is right".
Man, I'm giving it my best, but it keeps on coming out as "Ilias
Laziridis is wrong", "Ilias Laziridis is wrong",
nikolai
come on, try the simple one (confirmed by the language designer):
"Ilias Lazaridis is right, at least with point b)"
Or are you another one weak puppet?
..
Robert McGovern wrote:
I thought you wanted to close the thread?
I cannot.
I've still on task active:
finding a concise name.
Rob
Customizes Object
obj.customizing_class
obj.cclass
obj.custom
..
Enough! The documentation is not wrong and posting all of these threads
isn't productive for anyone - nor is blaming matz for your own incompetence.
Look at your life, man. You sit around and post trolls to various language
lists until they start ignoring you. Is that really satisfying? Get a hobby,
and stop clogging up this list with your rubbish.
Bill
On 4/21/05, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)" > > on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:04:56 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> > writes:
>
> >You find my 3 questions within the original message of this thread.
> >Could you please have the courtesy to reply there?
>
>>* Who has written the "ri Class" documentation?
>
> I wrote the original figure. The documentation is not by me, but by
> the English doc team members.where can I find a list of the english doc team members?
I would like to know who is responsible for this text.
>>* Can I expect an apology for this false documentation?
>
> I'm not sure how much useful an apology can be, but you can.you are not the direct responsible (although you should have verified
this critical documentation part).> I feel sorry that you've misunderstood.
If you really feel sorry, than you should possibly reply to my initial
message and comment what i've worked-out within the last 2 weeks.As you see, the community has problems to accept a very simple fact:
the "ri Class" documentation is defective.
> >I don't know "David Alan Black".
> >
> >But: not he should 'pursuade' you to add such a method.
> >
> >Rationality should do.
>
> You don't have to worry about him to force me to add it without
> rationality.I don't worry about this.
You should trust your userbase.
And let them decide the power which they will use (or abuse).
> matz.
..
--
Bill Atkins
Hi,
In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)" on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:44:32 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> writes:
I feel sorry that you've misunderstood.
If you really feel sorry, than you should possibly reply to my initial
message and comment what i've worked-out within the last 2 weeks.
I don't think I could read through all of your post and reply _before_
feeling sorry. And I will add a word "vertical" before "arrow" for
the next check in, anyway.
matz.
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
the "ri Class" documentation is defective.
This model is defective: http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png
The U in UML is also deceptive and incorrect. Please notify those responsible for
UML and aforementioned model and correct.
[SIG_HUP]
disconnected.
Hi,
>What would: (class << obj; self; end) give you if there's no
>singleton class?In that case, it would give you a (perhaps one-time only) class-like
object described above.So....
x = class << obj; self; end
y = class << obj; self; endx and y would be two class-like objects, instead of one class? Also,
what exactly is a class-like object?
Perhaps. And the latter question is hard to answer, since it still is
a vague idea. I just don't want to deny the possibility of different
implementation.
Maybe there should be singleton modules instead of singleton
classes.... (That would also solve the problem of "singleton class"
having two meanings.)
I'm not sure why singleton modules are better than singleton classes.
matz.
In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)" on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:04:16 +0900, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Robert McGovern wrote:
I thought you wanted to close the thread?
I cannot.
I've still on task active:
finding a concise name.
I find greek letters and fruit useful to move on beyond recursive analysis paralysis.
banana
On the other hand, should you eventually discover the "true" name of an object, you can wield great power over that object.
banana.sit
banana.roll_over
banana.play_dead
--
J. Lambert
Please remove me from the "Ilias warning" mailing list.
On 21 Apr 2005, at 14:59, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
[some stuff]
Please stop responding to Ilias, he is crazy. If you stop talking to him, he will go away.
If you don't believe me, check out this:
http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/mad-people.html
Especially:
> Ilias is currently (17-Sep-2002) being almost entirely ignored and is > crying alone to himself, while trying to join in various threads. > With luck if this continues he will get bored and wander off to annoy > people in some other newsgroup. He is one of the most malignant > posters to cll in recent history - between 27-Aug-2002 and > 24-Sep-2002 threads begin by him were about 1/4 of the articles in > cll.
Again, this man is insane, so please, please, please refrain from replying to his posts, or in threads he starts.
If you would, please join us is fighting this problem. For more details, see:
Ruby | zenspider.com | by ryan davis
Thank you!
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04
--
J. Lambert
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>Maybe there should be singleton modules instead of singleton
>classes.... (That would also solve the problem of "singleton class"
>having two meanings.)I'm not sure why singleton modules are better than singleton classes.
Hm, Modules can not be instantiated (so it would be one less special case) and the ability of including modules in other objects might be nice.
Hi --
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)" > on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:04:16 +0900, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
>x and y would be two class-like objects, instead of one class? Also,
>what exactly is a class-like object?Perhaps. And the latter question is hard to answer, since it still is
a vague idea. I just don't want to deny the possibility of different
implementation.>Maybe there should be singleton modules instead of singleton
>classes.... (That would also solve the problem of "singleton class"
>having two meanings.)I'm not sure why singleton modules are better than singleton classes.
I didn't express that thought very clearly. I was thinking: modules
are already a sort of "class-like" (but non-instantiable) object. But
it's probably not relevant, since I think what you're talking about is
implementations that avoid the whole container-creation process.
David
--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
