def

[T. Onoma]

what is this def?
it is not a method...?
it is not some sugar...?
well might it be a lambda...?
just what is this def?

(funny we say def for define but not init for initialize)

-t0

[gabriele renzi]

il Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:11:13 +0900, "T. Onoma" <transami@runbox.com>
ha scritto::

>what is this def?
>it is not a method...?
>it is not some sugar...?
>well might it be a lambda...?
>just what is this def?

a keyword?
well, btw it is also sugar fore define_method() :)

>(funny we say def for define but not init for initialize)

I would have loved init :(

sidenote: what about that old thread about making def return something
useful ? (I remember that an UnboundMethod was refused, but what about
a Symbol? )

[Joel VanderWerf]

T. Onoma wrote:

> what is this def?
> it is not a method...?
> it is not some sugar...?
> well might it be a lambda...?
> just what is this def?
>
> (funny we say def for define but not init for initialize)
>
> -t0
>

It is a special form. Or, to paraphrase the Gateless Gate,

A monk asked Nansen: `Is there a teaching no master ever preached before?'

Nansen said: `Yes, there is.'

`What is it?' asked the monk.

Nansen replied: `It is not a method, it is not some sugar, it is not
lambda.'

([url]http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/27.html[/url])

[Chad Fowler]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:

# what is this def?

A keyword

# it is not a method...?

No.

# it is not some sugar...?

Sort of. (But you could say that pretty much everything in modern
languages is sugar).

# well might it be a lambda...?

No.

# just what is this def?
#

See above.

# (funny we say def for define but not init for initialize)
#

Not really.

[T. Onoma]

i ask b/c i was thinking it would be good if def actually returned a value, i.e. the symbol of the method being defined.

def foo # => :foo
...
end

why?

private def foo
...
end

instead of having to do seperated way.

-t0

> what is this def?
> it is not a method...?
> it is not some sugar...?
> well might it be a lambda...?
> just what is this def?
>
> (funny we say def for define but not init for initialize)

[Rich]

I can already open my EXE from Ruby using:

IO.popen("gui.exe")

I'm hoping that I can remove the chrome from that EXE before I run it...

... either at runtime with some command or option...

... or before I run it if there's some place in the binary file I can change
something...

... it might even be ok if I had to embed the exe in some other exe... as
long as I could still give everything to the client in 'one exe'...

... is there a simple way?

Thanks!

-Rich
P.s. - I'm really, really clueless about any serious programming, so please
go easy on me if it's simple... thanks!

[Mauricio Fernández]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:02:41AM +0900, T. Onoma wrote:

> i ask b/c i was thinking it would be good if def actually returned a value, i.e. the symbol of the method being defined.
>
> def foo # => :foo
> ...
> end
>
> why?
>
> private def foo
> ...
> end

heh

[url]http://www.rubygarden.org/article.php?sid=294[/url]


--
_ _
| |__ __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

Not only Guinness - Linux is good for you, too.
-- Banzai on IRC

[Florian Gross]

Moin!

Mauricio Fernández wrote:

> [url]http://www.rubygarden.org/article.php?sid=294[/url]

I did some more thinking on my initial suggestion and came to the
conclusion that def should return a Method which like all other Methods
should have a #to_sym.

It sure would be nice to know what matz thinks about all of this!

Regards,
Florian Gross

[gabriele renzi]

il Sun, 16 Nov 2003 06:11:34 +0900, Florian Gross <flgr@ccan.de> ha
scritto::

>Moin!
>
>Mauricio Fernández wrote:
>

>> [url]http://www.rubygarden.org/article.php?sid=294[/url]

>

btw even:
[url]http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/15434[/url]

the last message from matz was

-------

>> Shugo Maeda once proposed making "def" to return symbol name of the
>> defined method.

>Yup: that would work very nicely too.
>
>So, do we have an RCR?

Yes. Would you add it, Mike? Or Dave?
matz.

[Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT]

Hi!

* Chad Fowler; 2003-11-15, 21:03 UTC:

> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:
> # it is not a method...?
>
> No.

Just for clarification: That is "no" as in "No, it really isn't", not
"no" as in "No, that is wrong" (which it to my knowledge would mean
in Japanese).

Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
--
.-------.
message > 100 kB? / | |
sender = spammer? / | R.I.P.|
text = spam? / ___| |___

[Jim Weirich]

Florian Gross wrote:

> I did some more thinking on my initial suggestion and came to the
> conclusion that def should return a Method which like all other Methods
> should have a #to_sym.
>
> It sure would be nice to know what matz thinks about all of this!

In the RubyConf keynote talk, Matz indicated that Ruby 2.0 would return
/something/ from a def. I don't recall if he was specific about what
that something was.

--
-- Jim Weirich [email]jweirich@one.net[/email] [url]http://onestepback.org[/url]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)

[Jim Weirich]

gabriele renzi wrote:

> I would have loved init :(
>

I'm thinking that Ruby should accept any method that is a one-character
misspelling of initialize as an initializer. Perhaps I'll write an RCR.

--
-- Jim Weirich [email]jweirich@one.net[/email] [url]http://onestepback.org[/url]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)