We are rubyists, and some of us are ruby hackers.
direct from the horse’s mouth. Rubyists we are then.
···
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 07:18 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 05:36 pm, Brennan Leathers wrote:
I understand rubyists is the traditional (and perhaps correct) term.
but at least for me, it is very awkward to say. I can’t imagine it
being easier to say for people who don’t use English as their first
language as its awkwardness has more to do with the sound of it than
the use of -ists as a suffix, which is precise.
yet, i agree. i’m happy to use the term Rubyists, but to save my mouth some
contortions i will probably pronounce it as “Rubists” most of the time.
–
tom sawyer, aka transami
transami@transami.net
.''.
.''. . *''* :_\/_: .
:_\/_: _\(/_ .:.*_\/_* : /\ : .'.:.'.
.‘’.: /\ : ./)\ ‘:’* /\ * : ‘..’. -=:o:=-
:/:‘.:::. | ’ ‘’ * ‘.'/.’ (/’.‘:’.’
: /\ : ::::: = / -= o =- /)\ ’ *
‘..’ ‘:::’ === * /\ * .‘/.'. ‘._____
* | .. : |. |’ .—"|
* | _ .–’| || | _| |
* | .-‘| __ | | | || |
.-----. | |’ | || | | | | | || |
__’ ’ /“\ | '-.”". ‘-’ ‘-.’ '` |.
So, what is the difference between a rubyist and a ruby hacker?
I don’t know. Perhaps a ruby hacker is someone who hacks ruby itself (C
source).
Daniel.
except that Ruby is a girl’s name (at least in america) so it makes it
sound overly feminine (sorry, Im not a female basher)
but yes, simple I like. nothing too clever.
···
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 06:36 PM, Rich wrote:
Why not just ‘Rubies’?
Simple, to the point… just like Ruby.
In article 8CE69E13-2362-11D7-9C75-000393C4FE10@mac.com,
···
Brennan Leathers digibren@mac.com wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 06:15 PM, Martin DeMello wrote:
Rubes 
sounds too much like ‘pubes’, sorry but it’s true. ruby miners is my
vote but IMO we shouldn’t rush the vote just to have a name for an
email.
-
- It’s a joke, son. Rube is very old american slang for somebody that is
naive or ignorant. Often used by hip city folk to refer to
somebody fresh from the farm…
-
one more thing.
any mention of the books should just be titles and/or authors with a
very brief description of who the book is aimed at. Some are for
beginners, some are intermediate, this is naturally important to note
in case the email inspires interest and a trip to the bookstore/library
is made. topics in the book are not that necessary IMO as that is
available through online bookstores or publisher/author sites, as long
as those are linked to or obvious.
brennan
direct from the horse’s mouth. Rubyists we are then.
I’m a developer. I happen to USE Ruby. And Java. And other things too.
We could put a single link to a wiki with the links provided.
BTW, www.modruby.net is duplicated.
···
On Thursday, 9 January 2003 at 9:52:29 +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, 10:51:19 AM, Brennan wrote:
- trim the URL section. IMO only links for the main site, Carrera &
Pine tutes, ruby-talk, and the online pickaxe are needed. all the rest
should go on a wiki or ruby-lang page somewhere and that can be linked
to.
I agree with everything in Brennan’s post except the above. I think
all the links are pretty snazzy and don’t take up too much room (at
least they’re together, so can be avoided by the reader if not
interested).
–
Jim Freeze
If you don’t have a nasty obituary you probably didn’t matter.
– Freeman Dyson
In Narf I have a module that is included in a test class to provide
additional facilities for web based testing.
class MyWebTest < TestCase
include Web::Testing
def setup
...
end
... tests
end
I need a way of performing an operation prior to the setup method
being called before all tests where the Web::Testing module is
included.
Anyone know how I can do this, or does Test::Unit need to be enhanced?
-Tom
In actual practice I call myself a ruby user.
martin
···
Tom Sawyer transami@transami.net wrote:
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 05:36 pm, Brennan Leathers wrote:
I understand rubyists is the traditional (and perhaps correct) term.
but at least for me, it is very awkward to say. I can’t imagine it
being easier to say for people who don’t use English as their first
language as its awkwardness has more to do with the sound of it than
the use of -ists as a suffix, which is precise.
yet, i agree. i’m happy to use the term Rubyists, but to save my mouth some
contortions i will probably pronounce it as “Rubists” most of the time.
Why not just ‘Rubies’?
Simple, to the point… just like Ruby.
except that Ruby is a girl’s name (at least in america) so it makes it
sound overly feminine (sorry, Im not a female basher)
I don’t mind a feminine name. Technically “Ruby” is a feminine name and I
like it.
I still don’t like “Rubies”, but for a different reason. Rubies is the
plural of Ruby. Thus, if we are Rubies, that means that I am a Ruby. But
Ruby is already the name of the language, so it sounds akward.
Matz says we’re rubyists. I like the name.
Daniel.
use a singleton?
you want something that is run once per suite right?
···
----- Original Message -----
From: “Tom Clarke” tom@u2i.com
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:03 PM
Subject: Adding hooks to TestUnit
In Narf I have a module that is included in a test class to provide
additional facilities for web based testing.
class MyWebTest < TestCase
include Web::Testing
def setup
...
end
... tests
end
I need a way of performing an operation prior to the setup method
being called before all tests where the Web::Testing module is
included.
Anyone know how I can do this, or does Test::Unit need to be enhanced?
-Tom
[…]
any mention of the books should just be titles and/or authors with a
I’d say ISBN also, as this allows all other data to be retrieved.
[…]
Hugh
···
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Brennan Leathers wrote:
I need a way of performing an operation prior to the setup
method being called before all tests where the Web::Testing
module is included.
Anyone know how I can do this, or does Test::Unit need to be enhanced?
So basically you want to define some per-test setup that will be called
regardless of whether #setup is overriden? I don’t think you can do that
currently. One work-around is to require that those using your module
call #super if they override #setup, which doesn’t seem terribly
onerous. I will, however, add this request to the TODO and try to
determine if there’s a good way to add it.
Nathaniel
<:((><
···
Tom Clarke [mailto:tom@u2i.com] wrote:
RoleModel Software, Inc.
EQUIP VI
I want to have something run before the setup in each test. As this is
an API I’m writing, I want the users of the API to do minimal legwork
- handling this initialization automatically will save people from
subtle bugs.
-Tom
···
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:08:15PM +0900, Dmitri Colebatch wrote:
use a singleton?
you want something that is run once per suite right?
----- Original Message -----
From: “Tom Clarke” tom@u2i.com
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:03 PM
Subject: Adding hooks to TestUnit
In Narf I have a module that is included in a test class to provide
additional facilities for web based testing.
class MyWebTest < TestCase
include Web::Testing
def setup
...
end
... tests
end
I need a way of performing an operation prior to the setup method
being called before all tests where the Web::Testing module is
included.
Anyone know how I can do this, or does Test::Unit need to be enhanced?
-Tom
How about this:
Module Web
Module Testing
add_pre_setup_hook {
# do my initialization
}
end
end
So that add_pre_setup_hook is a method on TestCase, which will add one
or more hooks (passed as a block) when called - in this case when the
module is included.
-Tom
···
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 05:37:24AM +0900, nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws wrote:
Tom Clarke [mailto:tom@u2i.com] wrote:
I need a way of performing an operation prior to the setup
method being called before all tests where the Web::Testing
module is included.
Anyone know how I can do this, or does Test::Unit need to be enhanced?
So basically you want to define some per-test setup that will be called
regardless of whether #setup is overriden? I don’t think you can do that
currently. One work-around is to require that those using your module
call #super if they override #setup, which doesn’t seem terribly
onerous. I will, however, add this request to the TODO and try to
determine if there’s a good way to add it.
Nathaniel
<:((><
RoleModel Software, Inc.
EQUIP VI
How about this:
Module Web
Module Testing
add_pre_setup_hook {
# do my initialization
}
end
end
So that add_pre_setup_hook is a method on TestCase, which
will add one or more hooks (passed as a block) when called -
in this case when the module is included.
I’ve got to mull this over some more, because I’m still not sure it’s
the best way to go. For instance, here’s an easy way to make sure that
users don’t introduce subtle bugs by forgetting to call #super in
#setup:
C:\tmp>type b.rb
require ‘test/unit’
module MyTestModule
def setup
@setup_called = true
end
def test_setup_called
assert(@setup_called, “You need to call super in your setup”)
end
end
class TC < Test::Unit::TestCase
include MyTestModule
def setup
end
end
C:\tmp>ruby b.rb
Loaded suite b
Started
…
Failure!!!
test_setup_called(TC) [b.rb:8]:
You need to call super in your setup
Finished in 0.0 seconds.
1 tests, 1 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors
I’ve used a test like this with JUnit before, and it works quite well. I
know it’s not quite as convenient as what you’re proposing, and I’m not
saying I won’t add something like #add_pre_setup_hook in the future
(it’s on the TODO so I won’t forget about it), but I’ve got to think
about it some more first. For now, what I propose above might be the
best way for you to do things in your library.
BTW, thanks for making testing such an important part of Narf. I love
having well-tested and easy-to-test infrastructure on which to base
applications.
Nathaniel
<:((><
···
Tom Clarke [mailto:tom@u2i.com] wrote:
RoleModel Software, Inc.
EQUIP VI
module MyTestModule
def setup
@setup_called = true
end
def test_setup_called
assert(@setup_called, “You need to call super in your setup”)
end
end
question from a ruby newbie… I’m assuming there’s no such thing as
declaring a method as final in ruby? if there is/was then the obvious
solution to me is to use the template pattern.
cheers
dim
How about this:
Module Web
Module Testing
add_pre_setup_hook {
# do my initialization
}
end
end
So that add_pre_setup_hook is a method on TestCase, which
will add one or more hooks (passed as a block) when called -
in this case when the module is included.
I’ve got to mull this over some more, because I’m still not sure it’s
the best way to go. For instance, here’s an easy way to make sure that
users don’t introduce subtle bugs by forgetting to call #super in
#setup:
Fair enough, I don’t mind using the super method for the time being.
Of course I’d rather not have to make anyone call anything if possible.
BTW, thanks for making testing such an important part of Narf. I love
having well-tested and easy-to-test infrastructure on which to base
applications.
Thanks!
-Tom
···
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:40:16AM +0900, nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws wrote:
Tom Clarke [mailto:tom@u2i.com] wrote:
module MyTestModule
def setup
@setup_called = true
end
def test_setup_called
assert(@setup_called, “You need to call super in your setup”)
end
end
question from a ruby newbie… I’m assuming there’s no such
thing as declaring a method as final in ruby? if there
is/was then the obvious solution to me is to use the template pattern.
Well, as far as I know there’s (thankfully!) nothing like final in Ruby.
But I guess I don’t understand what you’re getting at… what would
final add, and what would you do with the template pattern?
Nathaniel
<:((><
···
Dmitri Colebatch [mailto:dim@colebatch.com] wrote:
RoleModel Software, Inc.
EQUIP VI