# I love Ruby **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [9 July 2004 10:17 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480 "2004-07-09T10:17:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Graham\_Nicholls2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4af34b/32.png) [@Graham\_Nicholls2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Graham_Nicholls2)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 10:17 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/1 "2004-07-09T10:17:32Z")
I had to say it! I teach for LearningTree, so was able to attend a perl course for free. I \_hated\_ perl - what a mess. Then I saw that python was "perl done properly", so looked at that. \_Much\_ better, but a few irritations. Then I thought "I'll try ruby". I did, but didn't have time to do much. Got a couple of books - both very good, although I have some constructive criticisms for both (Programming Ruby, & The Ruby Way), and now I'm an expert (not!). I love that everything's an object, so I can just do x.y.z.j.f combining methods - like this: val=@data.fetch([datid.tr](http://datid.tr)('~','$').sub(/\s\*$/,'') (I hope thats not considered bad form) So much that I intuitively try works - which is great. I've not crossposted to c.l.python, as this (really) isn't a troll, but I'm coming to the conclusion that ruby is "python done properly". But don't tell anyone - I don't want to be flamed senseless. Anyway, antirant over, back to work. Graham PS. 1 complaint - begin and end. I use vi (vim/gvim), and would prefer the use of braces so I can quickly go to the matching start/end block with %. Any suggestions? a #define equivalent, perhaps? > **路路路** > > -- > With Linux, the answer's always "Yes" ---
**Author:** ![Laurent\_Julliard4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@Laurent\_Julliard4](https://rubytalk.org/u/Laurent_Julliard4)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 10:52 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/2 "2004-07-09T10:52:34Z")
> I had to say it! you're welcome 馃檪 \ > I love that everything's an object, so I can > just do x.y.z.j.f combining methods - like this: > > val=@data.fetch(datid.tr('~','$').sub(/\s\*$/,'') > > (I hope thats not considered bad form) So much that I intuitively try works > - which is great. yeah, we all love this feeling, and not, it's not considered bad form. Remember that you can even chain methods on the end of blocks, like: foo.gsub do |x| ... end.gsub do |x| ... end > I've not crossposted to c.l.python, as this (really) isn't a troll, but I'm > coming to the conclusion that ruby is "python done properly". usually people seem to think that ruby is smalltalk or lisp or perl done properly. Probably all of this are just unlambda done properly 馃檪 \ > PS. 1 complaint - begin and end. I use vi (vim/gvim), and would prefer the > use of braces so I can quickly go to the matching start/end block with %. > Any suggestions? a #define equivalent, perhaps? I think ruby.vim allows you to do the same trick. Anyway, usually you don't need begin..end. Say, in a method you don't have to write: def foo begin   bla rescue   blablsa end end you can just write: def foo bla rescue blabla end And this is most of the begin..end usage 馃檪 > **路路路** > > il Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:15:59 +0100, Graham Nicholls \ ha scritto:: ---
**Author:** ![zuzu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ce73a5/32.png) [@zuzu](https://rubytalk.org/u/zuzu)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 10:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/3 "2004-07-09T10:56:47Z")
> I had to say it! I teach for LearningTree, so was able to attend a perl > course for free. I \_hated\_ perl - what a mess. Then I saw that python was > "perl done properly", so looked at that. \_Much\_ better, but a few > irritations. Then I thought "I'll try ruby". I did, but didn't have time > to do much. Got a couple of books - both very good, although I have some > constructive criticisms for both (Programming Ruby, & The Ruby Way), and > now I'm an expert (not!). I love that everything's an object, so I can > just do x.y.z.j.f combining methods - like this: > > val=@data.fetch(datid.tr('~','$').sub(/\s\*$/,'') > > (I hope thats not considered bad form) So much that I intuitively try works > - which is great. grab someone else and ask them, "is it obvious which object owns these functions?" to me, this does.    data --\> .fetch    datid --\> .tr              .sub but you appear to be missing a closing ) 馃槈 > I've not crossposted to c.l.python, as this (really) isn't a troll, but I'm > coming to the conclusion that ruby is "python done properly". But don't > tell anyone - I don't want to be flamed senseless. > Anyway, antirant over, back to work. > Graham i've been gushing about ruby lately too, and i went through a similar experience. first i tried perl because so many sysadmin and early web cgi programmers were raving about it, but TMTOWTDI made reverse-engineer learning perl from cpan rather evil. (i had to learn that perl is meant to be written, not read.) then i became thoroughly frustrated with C++ and python looked like "interpreted C++ with none of the mess", but the underscores bothered me more than tabbed delimiting. then i looked into the history of programming languages, lisp, and why alan kay invented smalltalk. then i remember hearing about ruby and let go of "great... an even more niche language". now i feel smarter when programming instead of dumber, as i did with C++. a near-perfect blend of perl, lisp, and smalltalk (+eiffel, so people say). ruby makes me happy. > PS. 1 complaint - begin and end. I use vi (vim/gvim), and would prefer the > use of braces so I can quickly go to the matching start/end block with %. > Any suggestions? a #define equivalent, perhaps? i agree with your one complaint. maybe because C++ was the first serious language i learned, maybe because { } looks more symmetrical to me and take ~1/4 the number of keystrokes to input. why are 'begin...end' and { } not always equivalent? > -- > With Linux, the answer's always "Yes" with a "but..." -z > **路路路** > > On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 19:17:32 +0900, Graham Nicholls \ wrote: ---
**Author:** ![ChokSheak\_Lau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ChokSheak\_Lau](https://rubytalk.org/u/ChokSheak_Lau)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 12:57 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/4 "2004-07-09T12:57:32Z")
"Graham Nicholls" \ wrote in message news:40ee705f$0$11817$afc38c87@auth.uk.news.easynet.net... > PS. 1 complaint - begin and end. I use vi (vim/gvim), and would prefer the > use of braces so I can quickly go to the matching start/end block with %. > Any suggestions? a #define equivalent, perhaps? hi Graham, I think that's a good point. I personally feel that using {} makes it easier for the eye to match a block. maybe Ruby can include this alternate syntax in the parser? chok ---
**Author:** ![Kaspar\_Schiess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/d78d45/32.png) [@Kaspar\_Schiess](https://rubytalk.org/u/Kaspar_Schiess)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 11:28 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/5 "2004-07-09T11:28:41Z")
> why are 'begin...end' and { } not always equivalent? This comes up once in a while, tell me if this answer is short enough: def foo(arg=nil)   if block\_given?     puts 'foo got block'   end end def bar(arg=nil)   if block\_given?     puts 'bar got block'   end end foo bar do end # \> foo got block foo bar {} # \> bar got block best regards, kaspar semantics & semiotics code manufacture www.tua.ch/ruby ---
**Author:** ![Kristof\_Bastiaensen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9fc29f/32.png) [@Kristof\_Bastiaensen1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Kristof_Bastiaensen1)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 12:02 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/6 "2004-07-09T12:02:45Z")
FYI, I have written a unlambda interpreter in Ruby. (I don't know if I should be proud of it...) It was ridiculously easy, because Ruby already provides everything (continuations, closures,...). I think the implementation is even easier to understand than the spec. It is not a very efficient implementation, since it uses recursion. But you don't have very large unlambda programs that you absolutely need to run, do you? Here it is: (Don't continue reading if you don't want to waste your time...) #!/usr/bin/env ruby #Unlambda interpreter #written by Kristof Bastiaensen \ require "stringio" def readchar   $char\_read = getc end K = lambda {|a| lambda { |b| a }} S = lambda {|a| lambda { |b| lambda { |c| a[c][b[c]] }}} I = lambda { |a| a } V = lambda { |a| V } R = lambda { |a| puts; a } C = lambda { |a| callcc { |cc| a[cc] } } D = lambda { |a| a} AT = lambda { |a| (readchar() ? a : V ) } PIPE = lambda { |a| $char\_read ? a[$char\_read] : V } CharLookup = { ?k =\> K, ?s =\> S, ?i =\> I,               ?v =\> V, ?r =\> R, ?c =\> C,               ?@ =\> AT, ?| =\> PIPE,               ?d =\> D, ?e =\> :dummy } def compile(stream)   loop do     raise "Premature end of stream!" if stream.eof     ch = stream.getc     if ch == ?` #`       return [compile(stream), compile(stream)]     elsif ch == ?.       a = stream.getc       return lambda { |b| print a.chr; b }     elsif ch == ??       a = stream.getc       return lambda { |b| b == a ? a : V }     elsif CharLookup.member?(ch)       return CharLookup[ch]     end   end end def eval\_expr(expr)   if expr.class == Array     r = eval\_expr(expr[0])     e2 = expr[1]     if (r == D and e2.class == Array)       return lambda { |a| eval\_expr(e2)[a] }     else       return r[eval\_expr(e2)]     end   else     return expr   end end def eval(string)   string = string.gsub(/#.\*$/, "")   stream = StringIO.new(string, "r")   callcc do |exit|     CharLookup[?e] = lambda { |a| exit[a] }     tree = compile(stream)     eval\_expr(tree)   end end if(ARGV.length != 1)   $stderr \<\< "Usage: %s \\n" % $0 else   str = IO.read(ARGV[0])   eval(str) end > **路路路** > > On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:52:17 +0000, gabriele renzi wrote: > > > usually people seem to think that ruby is smalltalk or lisp or perl > > done properly. Probably all of this are just unlambda done properly 馃檪 ---
**Author:** ![David\_A\_Black3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@David\_A\_Black3](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_A_Black3)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 13:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/7 "2004-07-09T13:24:14Z")
Hi -- > **路路路** > > On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, ChokSheak Lau wrote: > > > "Graham Nicholls" \ wrote in message > > news:40ee705f$0$11817$afc38c87@auth.uk.news.easynet.net... > > \> PS. 1 complaint - begin and end. I use vi (vim/gvim), and would prefer the > > \> use of braces so I can quickly go to the matching start/end block with %. > > \> Any suggestions? a #define equivalent, perhaps? > > > > hi Graham, I think that's a good point. I personally feel that using {} > > makes it easier > > for the eye to match a block. maybe Ruby can include this alternate syntax > > in the parser? > > I don't think there would be any way to distinguish this from a hash > literal. > > David > > -- > David A. Black > dblack@wobblini.net ---
**Author:** ![Graham\_Nicholls2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4af34b/32.png) [@Graham\_Nicholls2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Graham_Nicholls2)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 14:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/8 "2004-07-09T14:32:36Z")
zuzu wrote: > but you appear to be missing a closing ) > 馃槈 I noticed about 2 minutes after I posted, when I tried to run it, which was really annoying! G. > **路路路** > > -- > With Linux, the answer's always "Yes" ---
**Author:** ![Graham\_Nicholls2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4af34b/32.png) [@Graham\_Nicholls2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Graham_Nicholls2)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 11:52 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/9 "2004-07-09T11:52:30Z")
Kaspar Schiess wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > \> why are 'begin...end' and { } not always equivalent? > This comes up once in a while, tell me if this answer is short enough: I didn't even know there was a {} ! Documentation (up to date) would seem to be a minor problem with ruby - am I being reasonable ? (To be fair, I've yet to read my 2 books from cover to cover, so I've probably missed it.) For instance, I believe theres no 1.8 documentation. I'm still in love, though 馃槈 > **路路路** > > -- > With Linux, the answer's always "Yes" ---
**Author:** ![zuzu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ce73a5/32.png) [@zuzu](https://rubytalk.org/u/zuzu)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 11:58 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/10 "2004-07-09T11:58:23Z")
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > \> why are 'begin...end' and { } not always equivalent? > This comes up once in a while, tell me if this answer is short enough: > > def foo(arg=nil) >         if block\_given? >                 puts 'foo got block' >         end > end > > def bar(arg=nil) >         if block\_given? >                 puts 'bar got block' >         end > end > > foo bar do end # \> foo got block > foo bar {} # \> bar got block > > best regards, > kaspar why the difference in scope? why does 'do...end' pass into foo instead of bar? p.s. "foo bar" feels quite ambiguous without any defining ( ). > semantics & semiotics \ ever look at "general semantics" by alfred korzybski? do you have any opinion on fred dretske w/r/t semiotics? \ > **路路路** > > On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:28:41 +0900, Kaspar Schiess \ wrote: > > > code manufacture > > > > www.tua.ch/ruby > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - [http://enigmail.mozdev.org](http://enigmail.mozdev.org) > > > > iD8DBQFA7oKYFifl4CA0ImQRAn/NAKCH39gW0a58Uw/Y3eiNnxStOPVRtACgmNRF > > Mpz4p0OGorKJ3ic+Wyje150= > > =XIcv > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---
**Author:** ![Laurent\_Julliard4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@Laurent\_Julliard4](https://rubytalk.org/u/Laurent_Julliard4)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 13:27 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/11 "2004-07-09T13:27:32Z")
:))) I wa thinking to write an unlambda interpreter just after my exams' session , end of july 馃槈 Damn, now I have to write the COW one.. givent that brainf\*\*k and OOk! are already there maybe we should start a section on the wiki 馃檪 > **路路路** > > il Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:02:46 +0200, Kristof Bastiaensen \ ha scritto:: > > > On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:52:17 +0000, gabriele renzi wrote: > > > > > usually people seem to think that ruby is smalltalk or lisp or perl > > > done properly. Probably all of this are just unlambda done properly 馃檪 > > > > FYI, I have written a unlambda interpreter in Ruby. (I don't know > > if I should be proud of it...) It was ridiculously easy, because > > Ruby already provides everything (continuations, closures,...). I think > > the implementation is even easier to understand than the spec. > > It is not a very efficient implementation, since it uses recursion. > > But you don't have very large unlambda programs that you absolutely > > need to run, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Geary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2acd7d/32.png) [@Michael\_Geary](https://rubytalk.org/u/Michael_Geary)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 16:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/12 "2004-07-09T16:47:31Z")
> \> why are 'begin...end' and { } not always equivalent? Kaspar Schiess wrote: > This comes up once in a while, tell me if this answer is short enough: > [indentation added] > > def foo(arg=nil) >     if block\_given? >         puts 'foo got block' >     end > end > > def bar(arg=nil) >     if block\_given? >         puts 'bar got block' >     end > end > > foo bar do end # \> foo got block > foo bar {} # \> bar got block That is very helpful, thanks. One thing I don't understand: \*Why\* does it work this way? What is the purpose of having different precedence for {} and do...end? It's always seemed a bit confusing to me, so knowing the purpose for this distinction would help keep it straight. Thanks, -Mike ---
**Author:** ![Laurent\_Julliard4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@Laurent\_Julliard4](https://rubytalk.org/u/Laurent_Julliard4)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 12:02 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/13 "2004-07-09T12:02:32Z")
you're reasonable but not in this thing. blocks in ruby are in the form: amethod do |vars| body end or amethod { |vars| body } this is the only place where {} are used as syntax delimiters, and the common idiom is to use do..end for multiline stuff, and {..} for one-line blocks. You can't use them in place of begin..end, like: begin print 10 end while true { print 10 } while true > **路路路** > > il Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:51:27 +0100, Graham Nicholls \ ha scritto:: > > > I didn't even know there was a {} ! > > Documentation (up to date) would seem to be a minor problem with ruby - am I > > being reasonable ? (To be fair, I've yet to read my 2 books from cover to > > cover, so I've probably missed it.) For instance, I believe theres no 1.8 > > documentation. I'm still in love, though 馃槈 ---
**Author:** ![Kaspar\_Schiess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/d78d45/32.png) [@Kaspar\_Schiess](https://rubytalk.org/u/Kaspar_Schiess)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 12:15 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/14 "2004-07-09T12:15:52Z")
zuzu wrote: > > why the difference in scope? > > why does 'do...end' pass into foo instead of bar? Actually the difference is one of 'operator precedence' and not one of scope, as far as {} can be called an operator. {} just binds very thight to the call to bar, whereas do end binds loosely to the call of foo. This means that ~ puts str.gsub { ... } will do what you expected but ~ puts str.gsub do ... end will call puts with a block. Hence the single line/multiline difference. Thank you for your OT (not to me) pointers, I will put them on the list of things to read ! Perhaps you will be interested in my opinion afterwards 馃槈 ? yours, kaspar semantics & semiotics code manufacture www.tua.ch/ruby ---
**Author:** ![Kristof\_Bastiaensen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9fc29f/32.png) [@Kristof\_Bastiaensen1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Kristof_Bastiaensen1)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 14:12 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/15 "2004-07-09T14:12:42Z")
> :))) > I wa thinking to write an unlambda interpreter just after my exams' > session , end of july 馃槈 Yes, I thought it would be a real challenge, but it appeared to be very easy in the end. Everything is already in the language. Now a ruby interpreter in unlambda, that would be a challenge! > Damn, now I have to write the COW one.. > givent that brainf\*\*k and OOk! are already there maybe we should start > a section on the wiki 馃檪 Yes, the "Ruby Comprehensive Esoteric language Archive", why not? Kristof > **路路路** > > On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:24:11 +0000, gabriele renzi wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Florian\_Gross](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9a140/32.png) [@Florian\_Gross](https://rubytalk.org/u/Florian_Gross)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 19:27 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/16 "2004-07-09T19:27:31Z")
gabriele renzi wrote: > Damn, now I have to write the COW one.. givent that brainf\*\*k and OOk! are already there maybe we should start > a section on the wiki 馃檪 Now I just \*have\* to post my Brainfuck interpreter where all instructions can dynamically be changed and new ones can be added without problems: > **路路路** > > > begin > >   require 'simplecc' > > rescue LoadError > >   def Continuation.create(\*args, &block) > >     cc = nil; result = callcc {|c| cc = c; block.call(cc) if block and args.empty?} > >     result ||= args > >     return \*[cc, \*result] > >   end > > end > > > > class BrainfuckContext > >   def initialize(code = nil, instructions = {}) > >     @data, @pointer, @jumps = Hash.new { 0 }, 0, > >     @instructions = Instructions.merge(instructions) > >     execute code if code > >   end > > > >   def execute(code) > >     code.split(//).each do |instruction| > >       instance\_eval(&@instructions[instruction]) > >     end > >   end > > > >   def getc; STDIN.getc || 0; end > > > >   Instructions = Hash.new { proc {} }.update({ > >     '\>' =\> proc { @pointer += 1 }, > >     '\<' =\> proc { @pointer -= 1 }, > >     '+' =\> proc { @data[@pointer] += 1 }, > >     '-' =\> proc { @data[@pointer] -= 1 }, > >     '.' =\> proc { putc @data[@pointer] }, > >     ',' =\> proc { @data[@pointer] = getc }, > >     '[' =\> proc do > >       jump, jumped = Continuation.create(false) > >       @jumps \<\< jump > >       unless jumped > >         @depth ||= 0 > >         @depth += 1 > >         # make all instructions but ']' noops > >         @old\_instructions = @instructions.dup > >         new\_instructions = { > >           '[' =\> proc { @depth += 1 }, > >           ']' =\> proc do > >             @depth = [0, @depth - 1].max > >             if @depth == 0 > >               # restore standard instruction table > >               @instructions.update(@old\_instructions) if @old\_instructions > >               @old\_instructions = nil > >                             jump = @jumps.pop > >               jump.call(true) if jump and @data[@pointer] != 0 > >             end > >           end > >         } > >         @instructions = @old\_instructions.dup.clear.update(new\_instructions) > >       end > >     end, > >     ']' =\> proc do > >       jump = @jumps.pop > >       jump.call(true) if jump and @data[@pointer] != 0 > >     end, > >     '#' =\> proc do > >       data = @data.to\_a.sort\_by { |(key, value)| > >         key > >       }.map { |(key, value)| > >         "#{key} = #{value}" > >       }.join(", ") > >       puts "#{@pointer} @ [#{data}]" > >     end > >   }) > > end > > > > def bf(code) > >   BrainfuckContext.new(code) > > end ---
**Author:** ![zuzu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ce73a5/32.png) [@zuzu](https://rubytalk.org/u/zuzu)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 12:12 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/17 "2004-07-09T12:12:58Z")
> \>I didn't even know there was a {} ! > \>Documentation (up to date) would seem to be a minor problem with ruby - am I > \>being reasonable ? (To be fair, I've yet to read my 2 books from cover to > \>cover, so I've probably missed it.) For instance, I believe theres no 1.8 > \>documentation. I'm still in love, though 馃槈 [http://www.rubycentral.com/book/](http://www.rubycentral.com/book/) it feels a bit like "v1.0" documentation and tends to be a bit too "for tradtional programmers" as a bridge to the ruby way of thinking for my tastes. (i'd rather be explained the "accepted style" upfront, personally.) but it is by far one of the best books on howto programming, let alone learning ruby, i've read. some where in there it explains about begin...end, then iirc talks about blocks, then explains about { }. i would lump that together, personally, but that's the "v1.0" thing. p.s. the "pragmatic programmers" are pretty on the ball about improving the process of programming; their other book is worth reading as well. > **路路路** > > On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:02:32 +0900, gabriele renzi \ wrote: > > > il Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:51:27 +0100, Graham Nicholls \> \ ha scritto:: > > > you're reasonable but not in this thing. > > blocks in ruby are in the form: > > > > amethod do |vars| > > body > > end > > > > or > > > > amethod { |vars| > > body > > } > > > > this is the only place where {} are used as syntax delimiters, and the > > common idiom is to use do..end for multiline stuff, and {..} for > > one-line blocks. > > > > You can't use them in place of begin..end, like: > > > > begin > > print 10 > > end while true > > > > { > > print 10 > > } while true ---
**Author:** ![zuzu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ce73a5/32.png) [@zuzu](https://rubytalk.org/u/zuzu)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 12:30 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/18 "2004-07-09T12:30:24Z")
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > zuzu wrote: > > \>\> why the difference in scope? > \>\> why does 'do...end' pass into foo instead of bar? > > Actually the difference is one of 'operator precedence' and not one of > scope, as far as {} can be called an operator. {} just binds very thight > to the call to bar, whereas do end binds loosely to the call of foo. > This means that > > ~ puts str.gsub { ... } > > will do what you expected but > > ~ puts str.gsub do ... end > > will call puts with a block. Hence the single line/multiline difference. \*lightbulb\* word. ..."that's not intuitive!" 馃槈 i would think that if you want to pass 'puts' a block, you should have to more strongly define: puts(str.gsub) do ... end lots of words with spaces weirds me out, like applescript. > Thank you for your OT (not to me) pointers, I will put them on the list > of things to > read ! Perhaps you will be interested in my opinion afterwards 馃槈 ? certainly. especially if you can finish 'science & sanity' by korzybski. dretske i'm so-so on, but supposidly 'flow of information' is the leading treatise on applying information theory to language... i think his research is solid, but so far disagree with his conclusion that knowledge is "all or nothing"; obviously he hasn't learned null-A from korzybski. > **路路路** > > On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:15:52 +0900, Kaspar Schiess \ wrote: > > > yours, > > kaspar > > > > semantics & semiotics > > code manufacture > > > > www.tua.ch/ruby > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - [http://enigmail.mozdev.org](http://enigmail.mozdev.org) > > > > iD8DBQFA7o2oFifl4CA0ImQRAsDzAKCzLCTMaE/f9lvJ3dvWXoSjeDltxgCfewzT > > dLMLTUzKpxUlwBhIsMvTREQ= > > =mY7c > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---
**Author:** ![Graham\_Nicholls2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4af34b/32.png) [@Graham\_Nicholls2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Graham_Nicholls2)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2004 12:57 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/i-love-ruby/12480/19 "2004-07-09T12:57:31Z")
gabriele renzi wrote: > this is the only place where {} are used as syntax delimiters, and the > common idiom is to use do..end for multiline stuff, and {..} for > one-line blocks. Ah, of course I had seen this. > You can't use them in place of begin..end, like: > > begin > print 10 > end while true This is what I thought was being said. Thanks for clearing that up! (Shame, though) Graham > **路路路** > > -- > With Linux, the answer's always "Yes"