Simple program:
while($_ != "q")
puts "Running..."
print "Enter q to quit: "
gets
chomp
end
However - getting the following in any progams in which I use 'chomp':
'undefined local variable or method 'chomp' for main: Object (NameError)
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
chomp, gsub, and others can only be used without a receiver in
one-liners. They are thought for making -p loops and such short.
In regular Ruby you normally use explicit variables (and in regular
Perl you normally also do).
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Barry O'gorman <barryjogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
Simple program:
while($_ != "q")
puts "Running..."
print "Enter q to quit: "
gets
chomp
endHowever - getting the following in any progams in which I use 'chomp':
'undefined local variable or method 'chomp' for main: Object (NameError)
At least in Ruby 1.9, Kernel#chomp only exists when the -n or -p
command-line options are used when launching ruby, and mostly would
only be used when you are putting the code all on the ruby command
line. If you want to take lines from the programs input, chomp them,
and send them (now run together) to the output until you hit a "q" by
itself in the input, this should do the trick:
ruby -p -e "chomp; $_ == 'q' ? break : $_"
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Barry O'gorman <barryjogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
Simple program:
while($_ != "q")
puts "Running..."
print "Enter q to quit: "
gets
chomp
endHowever - getting the following in any progams in which I use 'chomp':
'undefined local variable or method 'chomp' for main: Object (NameError)
Really? I'm using ruby 1.8.7 (on a mac) and the code runs fine for me. Not
that I disagree with the comment though: I think the receiver should be used
for clarity.
btw, runs fine in irb and ruby proper.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Barry O'gorman <barryjogorman@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Simple program:
>
> while($_ != "q")
> puts "Running..."
> print "Enter q to quit: "
> gets
> chomp
> end
>
> However - getting the following in any progams in which I use 'chomp':
> 'undefined local variable or method 'chomp' for main: Object (NameError)chomp, gsub, and others can only be used without a receiver in
one-liners. They are thought for making -p loops and such short.In regular Ruby you normally use explicit variables (and in regular
Perl you normally also do).
Yeah, it's new in 1.9.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Sven Schott <sven.schott@gmail.com> wrote:
Really? I'm using ruby 1.8.7 (on a mac) and the code runs fine for me. Not
that I disagree with the comment though: I think the receiver should be used
for clarity.
Slightly offtopic, but is everyone using 1.9? Are my marbles rolling away
because I'm still on 1.8?
Only on 1.8 because I thought that was still the official stable version.
(i.e. won't break anything)
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Sven Schott <sven.schott@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Really? I'm using ruby 1.8.7 (on a mac) and the code runs fine for me.
Not
> that I disagree with the comment though: I think the receiver should be
used
> for clarity.Yeah, it's new in 1.9.
I use 1.8.7 on my Macbook Pro, running Snow Leopard, because all other
versions are painfully slow (maybe an rvm problem?)
I use 1.9.1 on my Hackintosh desktop, running Leopard, it is not slow there,
so I use it.
But I always reference the 1.8.6 docs anyway, so hypothetically anything I
write should be good for either of them, unless a gem has issues.
All my friends are on 1.9.1, Heroku is on 1.8.7, at my work it was a mix
between 1.8.6 and 1.8.7
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Sven Schott <sven.schott@gmail.com> wrote:
Slightly offtopic, but is everyone using 1.9? Are my marbles rolling away
because I'm still on 1.8?Only on 1.8 because I thought that was still the official stable version.
(i.e. won't break anything)On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Sven Schott <sven.schott@gmail.com> > > wrote:
>
> > Really? I'm using ruby 1.8.7 (on a mac) and the code runs fine for me.
> Not
> > that I disagree with the comment though: I think the receiver should be
> used
> > for clarity.
>
> Yeah, it's new in 1.9.
>
>
Slightly offtopic, but is everyone using 1.9? Are my marbles rolling away
because I'm still on 1.8?
Yes. And you will die.
Seriously: I think we are still in a transitional phase. It does seem though that most people coming to the language now start out 1.9ish. Applications which are around for a while are likely to still use 1.8 (or even 1.8.6).
Only on 1.8 because I thought that was still the official stable version.
(i.e. won't break anything)
Currently I'd say if robustness is your main concern that is probably the best choice. And I guess that will be true for a while (maybe a year or so) although my crystal ball rolled away yesterday so please take it with a grain of salt. 
Kind regards
robert
On 07.09.2010 05:20, Sven Schott wrote:
--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
Sven Schott wrote:
Slightly offtopic, but is everyone using 1.9?
I'm almost certainly in a minority, but I won't touch 1.9 because of the
String madness[1][2]. ruby <= 1.8.x is a wonderful language.
Regards,
Brian.
[1] string19/string19.rb at master · candlerb/string19 · GitHub
[2] string19/soapbox.rb at master · candlerb/string19 · GitHub
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.