On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 2:25:42 AM UTC-5, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Rick Johnson wrote:
> > The only difference is when you want to make a call from a
> > _reference_, which, as you and i well know, is not the
> > most common way func/meths are called (these are rare).
>
> No, but it's the ca
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:34:17 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Question: How do you get a reference to a Ruby function? Or are they not
>> first-class objects?
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4294485/how-do-i-reference-a-function-
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:34:17 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Question: How do you get a reference to a Ruby function? Or are they not
> first-class objects?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4294485/how-do-i-reference-a-function-
in-ruby
Especially this answer, which is worth reading:
https://
Rick Johnson wrote:
The only difference is when you want to make a call from a
_reference_, which, as you and i well know, is not the most
common way func/meths are called (these are rare).
No, but it's the case we're talking about here. If
functions don't behave the same way in all circumstanc
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 6:55:23 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:28:34 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> [...]
>> > Since when did utilizing a method to request a specific
>> > value become some sort of magic?
>>
>>
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 6:55:23 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:28:34 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
[...]
> > Since when did utilizing a method to request a specific
> > value become some sort of magic?
>
> Since it requires a special method that has super powers no
> m
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:28:34 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 8:46:54 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
> > Cool, so Greg was right: you can't get a reference to a method or
> > function. You need magic to simulate it.
>
> Since when did utilizing a method to request a
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 4:47:05 PM UTC-5, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Rick Johnson wrote:
> > rb> Object.method("print_name").call("Meathead")
>
> Yes, but the point is that you have to have to use a different
> syntax to call it. This is like having to say
>
> f.__call__(arg)
>
> in Pytho
Rick Johnson wrote:
rb> Object.method("print_name").call("Meathead")
Yes, but the point is that you have to have to use a different
syntax to call it. This is like having to say
f.__call__(arg)
in Python instead of just
f(arg)
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/py
Chris Angelico wrote:
Ahh, that explains it. Great. So how do you build higher-order
functions? Or don't you?
You don't, exactly. You have to pass around objects
with a method to invoke when you want to "call" them.
Ruby has a code-block syntax that helps with this
somewhat, but I don't think
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:35:31 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Why are you suggesting that this is magic?
_You_ are the one who leveled the accusation that Ruby's
methodology for fetching a function reference (a la):
Object.method(meth-name-here)
is "magic". I'm merely requesting t
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:28 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 8:46:54 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> [...]
>> Cool, so Greg was right: you can't get a reference to a
>> method or function. You need magic to simulate it.
>
> Since when did utilizing a method to request a s
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 8:46:54 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
> Cool, so Greg was right: you can't get a reference to a
> method or function. You need magic to simulate it.
Since when did utilizing a method to request a specific
value become some sort of magic?
Do you consider this
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:55:01 AM UTC-5, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>> Chris Angelico wrote:
>> > Question: How do you get a reference to a Ruby function? Or are they
>> > not first-class objects?
>>
>> They're not first-class. So, you can't
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 3:24:48 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:37:35 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Printing a string and calling a function is obfuscated code? Deary me.
When the programmer can't be bothered to invent names more
descriptive than `a` and `b`, why ye
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:55:01 AM UTC-5, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> > Question: How do you get a reference to a Ruby function? Or are they
> > not first-class objects?
>
> They're not first-class. So, you can't.
If Chris means: "how do you get a reference to a Ruby
funct
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:37:35 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:46:03 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Rick, you're supposedly familiar with Ruby. And yet, you didn't notice
>> that your supposed "fix" didn't touch any executable code, all it did
>> was modify the strin
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, at 2:19 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
>Sure, the behavior that Steven
> uncovered is odd, but it could be that Maz harbors a strong
> disliking for undisciplined pupils, and thus, he designed
> and placed this little trap in the hopes the pain it induced
> might encourage the petula
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> Question: How do you get a reference to a Ruby function? Or are they
>> not first-class objects?
>
>
> They're not first-class. So, you can't.
>
Ahh, that explains it. Great. So how do you build higher-order
funct
Chris Angelico wrote:
Question: How do you get a reference to a Ruby function? Or are they
not first-class objects?
They're not first-class. So, you can't.
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Ned Batchelder wrote:
"Ranting Rick" isn't trying
to enlighten, educate, or learn. He's trying to rile people up, and he
is good at it.
I don't think he's even trying, it just come naturally
to him. Rick rants the way wind blows and water wets.
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listi
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 6:11:31 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 02:19:12PM -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
[...]
> > Hmm. If "syntax parser rules" could prevent poorly
> > formatted code, then there'd be no need for style guides.
>
> It may be telling that my team has minimal styl
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:10 AM, Python wrote:
> Ruby touts itself as being a simple language with elegant syntax.
> This thread is my only exposure to it to date, but what I've seen here
> is, frankly, the exact opposite of that. You should not need a map to
> distinguish function calls from va
On 3/26/18 7:10 PM, Python wrote:
Humans are already good enough at making mistakes that they
require no additional encouragement, such as what is
provided by allowing such syntactical horrors.
Agreed. And that's why we must respect and follow the code
styling wisdom which has been passed down b
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 02:19:12PM -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 3:09:38 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:37:35AM -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> [...]
> > > Ruby followed the rules.
> > > But you didn't.
> >
> > Nonsense... Your language's syntax pars
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 3:09:38 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:37:35AM -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
[...]
> > Ruby followed the rules.
> > But you didn't.
>
> Nonsense... Your language's syntax parser is what defines
> the rules. All of the expressions Stephen wrote did not
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:37:35AM -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > Because of this "fix", the printed strings no longer match
> > the code being executed, but the strange, inconsistent
> > behaviour still occurs.
>
> The supposed "inconsistent behavior" here has absolutely
> nothing to do with Ruby
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> The supposed "inconsistent behavior" here has absolutely
> nothing to do with Ruby, no, it's all on _you_. _YOU_ are
> the one who created a non-sensical function with a single
> char name; and _YOU_ are the one who placed a call to that
> fun
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:43:32AM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The kicker is that out of these four legal, parenthesis-free ways of
> calling function a, *three* of them interpret the expression as:
>
> call a with no arguments
> then add b using the binary plus operator
>
> but the
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:33:49AM -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > [steve@ando ruby]$ ruby ws-example.rb
> > a + b => 7
> > a+b => 7
> > a+ b => 7
> > a +b => 3
> >
> > Here's the source code:
> >
> > # --- cut ---
> > def a(x=4)
> > x+2
> > end
> >
> > b = 1
> > print "a + b => ", (a + b),
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:46:03 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Rick, you're supposedly familiar with Ruby. And yet, you
> didn't notice that your supposed "fix" didn't touch any
> executable code, all it did was modify the strings being
> printed.
Because the goal was to *UN-OBFUSCATE* th
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 19:16:12 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 5:57:28 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> [supposed "fix" to the sample script snipped]
>>
>> You know Rick, every time I start to think that talking to you like an
>> adult might result in a productive and
On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 5:57:28 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> [supposed "fix" to the sample script snipped]
>
> You know Rick, every time I start to think that talking to
> you like an adult might result in a productive and
> intelligent conversation, you pull a stunt like this. Once
>
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:33:49 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 9:11:35 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 04:49:21 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> [...]
>> I never said anything about not allowing it. But since you've gone on
>> the defence about parens-fr
On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 9:11:35 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 04:49:21 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
[...]
> I never said anything about not allowing it. But since
> you've gone on the defence about parens-free function
> calls, how is this for "consistency" in Ruby?
>
>
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 04:49:21 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> - with no arguments, using the parenthesis-free syntax,
>> Ruby automagically forwards the same arguments to the (single)
>> parent;
>
> Which is merely a natural result of Ruby's function/method call syntax.
> Not allowing a parenthe
36 matches
Mail list logo
