On 2/19/07, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Robert Dober wrote:
> On 2/19/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In message "Re: For loops don't count down" >> >> on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:45:27 +0900, Daniel Schierbeck >> >> <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >Is there a necessity for a range such as 5..0 to be empty?
>>
>> 5..1 is the easiest case,
> No it is not, how could we distinguish between a "reversed" range and
> an "empty" range.
> but what if "abz".."abc" where we couldn't
>> define reasonable String#pred. Just raise error?
> With all due respect if we have a reasonable String#succ we can define
> a reasonable String#pred.
See the thread starting at ruby-talk 38910 for an earlier discussion
of this. It's not easy, and it's arbitrary and of questionable
usefulness. (I don't think ranges need to be any more array-like than
they already are -- possibly less.)
I do not like the lack of symmetry it just feels not right.
>> Hi --
>>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> >Is there a necessity for a range such as 5..0 to be empty?
>> >>
>> >> 5..1 is the easiest case,
>> > No it is not, how could we distinguish between a "reversed" range and
>> > an "empty" range.
>> > but what if "abz".."abc" where we couldn't
>> >> define reasonable String#pred. Just raise error?
>> > With all due respect if we have a reasonable String#succ we can define
>> > a reasonable String#pred.
>>
>> See the thread starting at ruby-talk 38910 for an earlier discussion
>> of this. It's not easy, and it's arbitrary and of questionable
>> usefulness. (I don't think ranges need to be any more array-like than
>> they already are -- possibly less.)
>
> I do not like the lack of symmetry it just feels not right.
You should adopt my Ruby slogan:
Ruby: the triumph of balance over symmetry.
It's easy when you are with the majority, do you remember the thread
about "receiver" though [ I still think you are right about that
one]
I kind of hope to be right with this one, but I am checking the thread now.
Cheers
Robert
···
On 2/19/07, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Robert Dober wrote:
> On 2/19/07, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Robert Dober wrote:
>> > On 2/19/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
>> >> In message "Re: For loops don't count down" > >> >> on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:45:27 +0900, Daniel Schierbeck > >> >> <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com> writes:
--
We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.
In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.
But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.
-Anonymous
It's easy when you are with the majority, do you remember the thread
about "receiver" though [ I still think you are right about that
one]
I kind of hope to be right with this one, but I am checking the thread now.
Cheers
Robert
Done.
But did you check it out?
Two facts:
It is 5 years old, and Matz said that Integer#prev was maybe not a good idea.
5 years later he has changed his mind and accepted the RCR about Integer#pred.
And I am not at all talking about that!!!
Am I as confusing as confused? [Gotta change the signature I guess]
Well just forget it for now I might have messed this thread up...
Cheers
Robert
···
On 2/19/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/07, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
>
> David
>
> --
> Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
> A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black\)
> (See what readers are saying! http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf\)
> Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
> A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)
>
--
We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.
In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.
But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.
-Anonymous
--
We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.
In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.
But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.
-Anonymous
> I do not like the lack of symmetry it just feels not right.
You should adopt my Ruby slogan:
Ruby: the triumph of balance over symmetry.
It's easy when you are with the majority, do you remember the thread
about "receiver" though [ I still think you are right about that
one]
I kind of hope to be right with this one, but I am checking the thread now.
One example is:
"09".succ # => "10"
"9".succ # => "10"
"10".pred # => ??
Since it's not a one-to-one mapping, the only way to go backwards is
to come up with arbitrary rules. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea,
but there's definitely no single clear way for it to work.
>> > I do not like the lack of symmetry it just feels not right.
>>
>> You should adopt my Ruby slogan:
>>
>> Ruby: the triumph of balance over symmetry.
>>
>>
> It's easy when you are with the majority, do you remember the thread
> about "receiver" though [ I still think you are right about that
> one]
> I kind of hope to be right with this one, but I am checking the thread
> now.
One example is:
"09".succ # => "10"
"9".succ # => "10"
I thought it was "a"
"10".pred # => ??
It would have been "09"
This is bad and there is no solution, good point again.
I guess I will deprecate String#succ in my programs
Thx for explaining it to me.
Since it's not a one-to-one mapping, the only way to go backwards is
to come up with arbitrary rules. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea,
but there's definitely no single clear way for it to work.
On 2/19/07, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Robert Dober wrote:
--
We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.
In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.
But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.
-Anonymous
[ I still think you are right about that