[Vit-discuss] Ruby-Lang Redesign Feedback Requested

James Edward Gray II james at grayproductions.net
Thu Aug 24 18:35:11 EDT 2006


On Aug 24, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:

> I found a couple inaccurate explanations on
> http://new.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/ruby-from-other-languages/
>
>     Methods
>
> [...]
>
>     Ruby differs slightly. public is, naturally, public. private  
> means the
>     method(s) are accessible to a class's and its ancestors'  
> instances.
>                
> =========================================================
> This seems unclear or confusing at worst.         ^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^
>                                                   especially this
>
>     Only self is allowed to be the receiver of a private method
>     call.
>
> Based on this, somebody could expect
>
>    self.some_private_method
>
> to work, so the explanation should probably be reworded to mention  
> the "no
> explicit received allowed" rule [1]. Also, the example given below is
> ambiguous. One can easily believe that other.func is failing, when  
> actually
> self.func won't work once #func is made private:
>
>   def ==(other)
>     self.func == other.func
>   end
>
>
> Also saw a small braino:
>
>     Operators are syntactic sugar
>   [...]
>
>   The methods below are not syntactic sugar, though. They are not  
> methods,
>       =======
>       operators
>   and cannot be redefined:
>   [...]
>
>
>
> This made me chuckle
>
>  http://new.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/ruby-from-other- 
> languages/to-ruby-from-c-and-c-/
>
>  [...]
>  Similarities with C
>  As with C, in Ruby,...
>
>      * the language is strongly typed.
>
> (C isn't).

I believe I fixed all of those.

James Edward Gray II


More information about the vit-discuss mailing list