Hello!
There were some more %xy(data) syntactical charactes added, like the old %q(text)
What is new? - Are there more than these 8 chars now?
thanks
Opti
That does not exist:
$ ruby -ce '%xy(data)'
-e:1: unknown type of %string
%xy(data)
^
Please be specific when you ask!
robert
···
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Die Optimisten <inform@die-optimisten.net> wrote:
There were some more %xy(data) syntactical charactes added, like the old
%q(text)
--
[guy, jim, charlie].each {|him| remember.him do |as, often| as.you_can
- without end}
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
I think he was only referring to all of the percent strings literals.
As for the question, I have not read anywhere that more were added in
ruby 2.4.
Per this page
(http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.4.0/doc/syntax/literals_rdoc.html#label-Percent+Strings),
it does not seem so.
···
--
Sathors
On 07/01/17, Robert Klemme wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Die Optimisten > <inform@die-optimisten.net> wrote:
> There were some more %xy(data) syntactical charactes added, like the old
> %q(text)That does not exist:
$ ruby -ce '%xy(data)'
-e:1: unknown type of %string
%xy(data)
^Please be specific when you ask!
robert
--
[guy, jim, charlie].each {|him| remember.him do |as, often| as.you_can
- without end}
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
Since OP seems to assume that some were added he should explicitly
mention those. Otherwise nobody has a chance to know what he is
talking about or find out where something went wrong.
Cheers
robert
···
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Sathors <sathors@free.fr> wrote:
I think he was only referring to all of the percent strings literals.
--
[guy, jim, charlie].each {|him| remember.him do |as, often| as.you_can
- without end}
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
Hi,
yeah, someone got it 
ok, I heard that more has been added;
since to_sym is not new, I wonder if sg else has been added (not in 2.4 docu yet)
Maybe I'm wrong.
# Can't mention, since I'm asking for them...
thanks
Opti
···
On 2017-01-07 17:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Sathors <sathors@free.fr> wrote:
I think he was only referring to all of the percent strings literals.
Since OP seems to assume that some were added he should explicitly
mention those. Otherwise nobody has a chance to know what he is
talking about or find out where something went wrong.Cheers
robert