Forum: Ruby Proposed new rule

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Warren B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 00:24
(Received via mailing list)
>
> 3.  Enjoy!

    I'd like to propose a new rule (1.5?):

Please flag all submissions and discussions of quizzes by starting the
subject with the string "[QUIZ]".

    I really enjoy following the discussions of the different quizzes
even though I rarely have time to do them anymore.  But in a 100 to 200
message per day mailing list, it is easy to miss a submission or a
discussion when the subject line doesn't indicate that it is
quiz-related.  Apparently I am not the only person having this problem,
as illustrated by one of the RRobots submissions being missed last week.

    This doesn't seem like it would be a particularly burdensome rule,
and it would make things a lot easier to follow.

    If we want to get really bold, the rule could also ask people
submitting solutions to start the subject with "[QUIZ][SOLUTION]" :o)

    Thoughts?

    - Warren B.
James G. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 01:08
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 3, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Warren B. wrote:

>>
>> 3.  Enjoy!
>
>     I'd like to propose a new rule (1.5?):
>
> Please flag all submissions and discussions of quizzes by starting the
> subject with the string "[QUIZ]".

I'm fine with "recommending" this as long as everyone realizes that's
all it will be.

>     If we want to get really bold, the rule could also ask people
> submitting solutions to start the subject with "[QUIZ][SOLUTION]" :o)

Yuck.  :)

[SOLUTION] implies [QUIZ], I think, so we can drop the repatition.
Of course, now what you are suppose to put in the subject is getting
more complicated, which probably decreases the chance that it will
happen.  That might be a reason to stick with just [QUIZ].  Opinions?

If the traffic is bothering people, we could also consider moving
Ruby Q. to it's own mailing list.  Do speak up, if we're bugging
you...

James Edward G. II
Craig D. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 01:51
(Received via mailing list)
I like this proposal, and I like implementing it as a "recommendation."

Regards,
Craig
Justin B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 02:03
(Received via mailing list)
I agree. using [SOLUTION] by itself makes sense.

I like the idea of extending this concept further.  Is it already a
"recommendation" that new software announcements (or updates) have
[ANN] in their subject line?

How about [QUESTION] for people looking for programming help, as well?
;o)

-Justin
Stephen W. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 02:16
(Received via mailing list)
James Edward G. II wrote:
> If the traffic is bothering people, we could also consider moving Ruby
> Quiz to it's own mailing list.  Do speak up, if we're bugging you...

It's already threaded quite nicely.  I can recall one instance, in Quiz
60, where someone posted out of thread, and that was for a new solution.

I don't mind the [QUIZ] as a "recommendation", but let's also recommend
readers be threaded.  Regardless, [QUIZ] makes obvious good sense.

IMO, the quiz certainly does not need its own list.

--Steve
Ross B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 02:34
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:04:45 -0000, James Edward G. II
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:

> If the traffic is bothering people, we could also consider moving Ruby
> Quiz to it's own mailing list.  Do speak up, if we're bugging you...

I still read via the newsgroup, and I'd be sad to see the Quiz go
elsewhere. I've not been confident enough to have a go yet but I enjoy
trying them out, and learning from the solutions and discussion I see.
Ezra Z. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 02:44
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 3, 2006, at 4:32 PM, Ross B. wrote:

> discussion I see.
>
> --
> Ross B. - removed_email_address@domain.invalid
>

+1

Please don't take the quiz to its own list James! I look forward to
reading the solutions and writeups very much and would consider ruby-
talk to be the perfect place for the quiz.

-Ezra
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 02:53
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 08:04:45AM +0900, James Edward G. II wrote:
>
> [SOLUTION] implies [QUIZ], I think, so we can drop the repatition.
> Of course, now what you are suppose to put in the subject is getting
> more complicated, which probably decreases the chance that it will
> happen.  That might be a reason to stick with just [QUIZ].  Opinions?

I think prefacing subject lines with [QUIZ] makes good sense, and it can
be encouraged by having a header or footer in new quiz threads that
makes that convention known to readers.  Confusing the issue by asking
people to use two different subject preface terms will probably just
lead to more people accidentally ignoring the convention, however, and I
think needlessly complicates the situation, so I'd advocate sticking
with [QUIZ] for all of it.

It has been suggested that other preface terms be used for other traffic
here.  I don't see this as being a particularly likely convention to
actually help anything, since it won't be specifically prompted in
threads that are started by someone not in a position to necessarily
know about these conventions.  For instance, someone new to the list
might not notice that he or she is supposed to start question thread
subjects with [QUESTION] (to say nothing of the fact that's quite a bit
of extra typing), and a convention like that is worse than no such
convention when it's only adhered to haphazardly, in my opinion.


>
> If the traffic is bothering people, we could also consider moving
> Ruby Q. to it's own mailing list.  Do speak up, if we're bugging
> you...

I'd prefer to keep it on ruby-talk, personally.  I don't really
participate, so I wouldn't pick up the new list, but I like to see what
quizzes come up, and I like to think about the problem domain when I see
it.  I guess what I'm saying is that it's better for the lazy readers
like myself to have it on ruby-talk rather than making it separate.

--
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);
J. Ryan S. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 03:27
(Received via mailing list)
Why does it have to be a rule at all?  Seems like the only one who
posts the quiz is J.E.G. 2 and everyone just replies to that post.
Can't it just be a suggestion to him alone?

~ ryan ~
James G. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 05:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 3, 2006, at 7:26 PM, J. Ryan S. wrote:

> Why does it have to be a rule at all?  Seems like the only one who
> posts the quiz is J.E.G. 2 and everyone just replies to that post.
> Can't it just be a suggestion to him alone?

This is how I've been operating, not wanting to get too heavy handed
with the rules.  It works more often than it does, I think.  There's
still times when it doesn't.  I'm not sure if adding a rule will fix
that or not.

Seems that the quiz can stay here a bit longer.  (At least that's
what I'm hearing.)  I'm grateful you all are so tolerant of our
playing around.

Let me here a few more opinions on the [QUIZ] rule, and I'll add it
if that seems a popular request...

James Edward G. II
Stephen W. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 06:04
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 3, 2006, at 7:48 PM, James Edward G. II wrote:

> Let me here a few more opinions on the [QUIZ] rule, and I'll add it
> if that seems a popular request...

Personally don't care.  More importantly is that people reply to the
original thread.  Keeping it under one (or two, ...) thread(s) is
more than adequate.

So, I guess I'm a +0

--Steve
Robert R. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 12:30
(Received via mailing list)
Stephen W. schrieb:

>
> So, I guess I'm a +0
>
> --Steve
>
>
>
Hello,
Don't make a new rule for that.

I mean the quiz master or James Edward G. II (may I abbr you in my
next messages?) start a thread here for people to reply on that. It has
to be common sense to use the given structures.
I personally filter all mails with [QUIZ] in a folder and view them
threaded, ordered by subject. This just works fine.
Besides [QUIZ], there is only [ANN] and [RAILS] I think.
I would like to have more tags, but that means all people have to use
them too and that won't happen.

Just imagin a list where all ppl use a set of maybe 20 tags like
[REGEXP], [TOOLKIT], [HTTPD] and so on :>
That would be so nice, but never happening.

-
With kind regards from Germany.
Kero (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 14:30
(Received via mailing list)
On 2006-01-04, Stephen W. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> IMO, the quiz certainly does not need its own list.
Full ack to all points, Stephen.
Christian N. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 19:13
(Received via mailing list)
Robert R. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> writes:

> Just imagin a list where all ppl use a set of maybe 20 tags like
> [REGEXP], [TOOLKIT], [HTTPD] and so on :>
> That would be so nice, but never happening.

While we are at it, let me propose:
[ALIOTH-SHOOTOUT], [I-REALLY-WANT-TO-THE-RAILS-LIST], [SOAP],
[SYMBOL], [SYNTAX-TWEAKS], [TROLL], [WEB].

Thank you. :-)
Joel VanderWerf (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 19:29
(Received via mailing list)
Christian N. wrote:
> While we are at it, let me propose:
> [ALIOTH-SHOOTOUT], [I-REALLY-WANT-TO-THE-RAILS-LIST], [SOAP],
> [SYMBOL], [SYNTAX-TWEAKS], [TROLL], [WEB].
>
> Thank you. :-)
>

How about [META] for discussions about the list itself?  ;)
Bill K. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 20:33
(Received via mailing list)
From: "Joel VanderWerf" <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
> Christian N. wrote:
>> While we are at it, let me propose:
>> [ALIOTH-SHOOTOUT], [I-REALLY-WANT-TO-THE-RAILS-LIST], [SOAP],
>> [SYMBOL], [SYNTAX-TWEAKS], [TROLL], [WEB].
>>
>> Thank you. :-)
>>
>
> How about [META] for discussions about the list itself?  ;)

Would discussions about the [META] tag itself qualify as
[META][META] ?


SCNR,

Bill
Hal F. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 21:06
(Received via mailing list)
Christian N. wrote:
> [SYMBOL], [SYNTAX-TWEAKS], [TROLL], [WEB].
There are many others, such as [PYTHON], [I-AM-CLUELESS],
[WHY-NO-AUTOINCREMENT], [WHINE], [FLAME], and of course
[LETS-TOTALLY-CHANGE-EVERYTHING-ABOUT-RUBY].


Hal
Christian N. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 21:36
(Received via mailing list)
Hal F. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> writes:

> There are many others, such as [PYTHON], [I-AM-CLUELESS],
> [WHY-NO-AUTOINCREMENT], [WHINE], [FLAME], and of course
> [LETS-TOTALLY-CHANGE-EVERYTHING-ABOUT-RUBY].

I composed my list by running

  grep proposes ~/.xchat2/xchatlogs/* | grep chris2

It looks like these didn't come up too often in latter times (or
didn't really annoy me). :-P
Ryan L. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 22:30
(Received via mailing list)
On 1/4/06, Hal F. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> There are many others, such as [PYTHON], [I-AM-CLUELESS],
> [WHY-NO-AUTOINCREMENT], [WHINE], [FLAME], and of course
> [LETS-TOTALLY-CHANGE-EVERYTHING-ABOUT-RUBY].

I like that last one, but even better:

[AFTER-TWO-DAYS-OF-USING-RUBY-HERE-IS-HOW-I-WOULD-CHANGE-IT]

Though maybe lately we haven't seen that too much.

Ryan
James G. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 22:45
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 3, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Stephen W. wrote:

> James Edward G. II wrote:
>> If the traffic is bothering people, we could also consider moving
>> Ruby Q. to it's own mailing list.  Do speak up, if we're bugging
>> you...
>
> It's already threaded quite nicely.  I can recall one instance, in
> Quiz 60, where someone posted out of thread, and that was for a new
> solution.

I just finished a hunt back through the last several quizzes and they
do seem to be threaded quite well.  So good in fact, that I doubt a
new rule is going to change anything.

Warren are you using a threading MUA?

James Edward G. II
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2006-01-04 23:28
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:30:22AM +0900, Bill K. wrote:
>
> Would discussions about the [META] tag itself qualify as
> [META][META] ?

Uh-oh.  What do we do if we're talking about metaprogramming?

--
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

"A script is what you give the actors.  A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall
Lloyd Z. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 00:41
(Received via mailing list)
Justin B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> writes:

> I agree. using [SOLUTION] by itself makes sense.
>
> I like the idea of extending this concept further.  Is it already a
> "recommendation" that new software announcements (or updates) have
> [ANN] in their subject line?
>
> How about [QUESTION] for people looking for programming help, as well? ;o)

... and then we can have [ANSWER] for the responses, not to mention
other things like [SUGGESTION], [RANT], [LANGUAGE-WAR], etc.  And since
[OT] is already in use, for the sake of parity, we should also have
[ON-TOPIC].  :)
Justin B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 00:47
(Received via mailing list)
We already have a few established tags which people DO use and nobody
seems to be averse towards.  [ANN], [RAILS], and [QUIZ].  so it seems
like the only argument is over exactly how many there should be...not
whether we should have them at all. so i don't see why a suggestion to
add _2_ more should be mocked as the equivalent of saying we make a
specific tag for everything under the sun....we have 3 already. i
suggested we have a whopping 5! watch out--i'm crrrrrrazy!

i respect the logical arguments to stick with just the 3 and that's
fine but that's no reason to act like one or two more is completely
outlandish.
Martin DeMello (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 01:48
(Received via mailing list)
Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > >How about [META] for discussions about the list itself?  ;)
> >
> > Would discussions about the [META] tag itself qualify as
> > [META][META] ?
>
> Uh-oh.  What do we do if we're talking about metaprogramming?

Use an eigentag, of course.

martin
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 02:33
(Received via mailing list)
Justin B. wrote:
> outlandish.
I expect that a general community consensus will determine what get
used.  People make up subject tags as they see fit, and if they strike a
chord with others, they get picked up.  Useless or confusing tags simply
go away.

I've seen [SOLUTION] used when people have been pursuing some general
problem (e.g., getting Ruby MySQL binary bindings working on Win32) and
finally reach a solution.  So it has a history already.



--

http://www.ruby-doc.org       - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com      - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com     - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com   - Building Better Tools
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 02:42
(Received via mailing list)
Bill K. wrote:
>>
>> How about [META] for discussions about the list itself?  ;)
>
>
> Would discussions about the [META] tag itself qualify as
> [META][META] ?

I'm looking for the list that that discusses lists that don't discuss
themselves.


James

--

http://www.ruby-doc.org       - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com      - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com     - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com   - Building Better Tools
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 04:54
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:39:32AM +0900, Lloyd Z. wrote:
> ... and then we can have [ANSWER] for the responses, not to mention
> other things like [SUGGESTION], [RANT], [LANGUAGE-WAR], etc.  And since
> [OT] is already in use, for the sake of parity, we should also have
> [ON-TOPIC].  :)

. . . or we could use [OT] for that, too, but it's a *different* [OT]
than the [OT] used for off-topic stuff.  Really it is.

--
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 04:57
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:33:14AM +0900, James B. wrote:
>
> I expect that a general community consensus will determine what get
> used.  People make up subject tags as they see fit, and if they strike a
> chord with others, they get picked up.  Useless or confusing tags simply
> go away.
>
> I've seen [SOLUTION] used when people have been pursuing some general
> problem (e.g., getting Ruby MySQL binary bindings working on Win32) and
> finally reach a solution.  So it has a history already.

True, that . . . it's sort of a "critical mass consensus" thing that
tends to lead to stuff like public wiki policy and Usenet traditions
like the one regarding Godwin's Law and the end of a discussion.

--
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 05:01
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 08:47:59AM +0900, Martin DeMello wrote:
> Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Uh-oh.  What do we do if we're talking about metaprogramming?
>
> Use an eigentag, of course.

Of course.  Silly me.

--
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

"Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to
build programs out of the wrong concepts." - Paul Graham
Hal F. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 05:25
(Received via mailing list)
James B. wrote:
>
> I'm looking for the list that that discusses lists that don't discuss
> themselves.
>

alt.spanish.barber


Hal
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 05:49
(Received via mailing list)
Hal F. wrote:
> James B. wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm looking for the list that that discusses lists that don't discuss
>> themselves.
>>
>
> alt.spanish.barber

But of course!


James
--

http://www.ruby-doc.org       - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com      - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com     - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com   - Building Better Tools
Ross B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 10:44
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 02:52:37 -0000, Chad P. 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:

>> well? ;o)
>>
>> ... and then we can have [ANSWER] for the responses, not to mention
>> other things like [SUGGESTION], [RANT], [LANGUAGE-WAR], etc.  And since
>> [OT] is already in use, for the sake of parity, we should also have
>> [ON-TOPIC].  :)
>
>  . . or we could use [OT] for that, too, but it's a *different* [OT]
> than the [OT] used for off-topic stuff.  Really it is.
>

[^OT] ?

Kinda works I guess. Maybe they should be switched though, since
on-topic
is hopefully the common case and so should be quicker to type...
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 11:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 05:43:00PM +0900, Ross B. wrote:
> >>> [ANN] in their subject line?
> >than the [OT] used for off-topic stuff.  Really it is.
> >
>
> [^OT] ?
>
> Kinda works I guess. Maybe they should be switched though, since on-topic
> is hopefully the common case and so should be quicker to type...

. . . or [!OT].

--
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

"A script is what you give the actors.  A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall
Bill K. (Guest)
on 2006-01-05 12:35
(Received via mailing list)
From: "Ross B." <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
>>> > "recommendation" that new software announcements (or updates) have
>>  . . or we could use [OT] for that, too, but it's a *different* [OT]
>> than the [OT] used for off-topic stuff.  Really it is.
>>
>
> [^OT] ?
>
> Kinda works I guess. Maybe they should be switched though, since on-topic
> is hopefully the common case and so should be quicker to type...

Excellent!  What a savings!  =D


Love it,

Bill
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-07 04:34
(Received via mailing list)
James Edward G. II wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Warren B. wrote:
>
>>     If we want to get really bold, the rule could also ask people
>> submitting solutions to start the subject with "[QUIZ][SOLUTION]" :o)
>
>
> Yuck.  :)
>
> [SOLUTION] implies [QUIZ], I think, so we can drop the repatition.

Well, no.

People have used SOLUTION for, well, solutions, for all sorts of
problems that they have asked of the list.

I've begun sorting certain topics into separate directories to reduce
the traffic in my main ruby-talk folder.  Having all QUIZ related items
contain QUIZ in the subject makes it pretty clear, as opposed to
assuming that people will only post solutions to quizzes.


Thanks,

James
--

http://www.ruby-doc.org       - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com      - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com     - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com   - Building Better Tools
James G. (Guest)
on 2006-01-07 06:50
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 6, 2006, at 8:33 PM, James B. wrote:

>
> People have used SOLUTION for, well, solutions, for all sorts of
> problems that they have asked of the list.
>
> I've begun sorting certain topics into separate directories to
> reduce the traffic in my main ruby-talk folder.  Having all QUIZ
> related items contain QUIZ in the subject makes it pretty clear, as
> opposed to assuming that people will only post solutions to quizzes.

I'm not clear on what you are asking me for here.  You want the
[QUIZ] rule and no [SOLUTION] rule?  Do I have that right?

James Edward G. II
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-07 07:38
(Received via mailing list)
James Edward G. II wrote:

> I'm not clear on what you are asking me for here.  You want the  [QUIZ]
> rule and no [SOLUTION] rule?  Do I have that right?

I'm saying that [SOLUTION] by itself does not imply [QUIZ]; all
quiz-related posts (initial quiz details, questions about the quiz in
particular or quizzes in general, solutions t quizzes, etc.) should have
QUIZ in the subject.

Adding SOLUTION to that subject line (i.e. [QUIZ SOLUTION]) would then
make it clearer for folks who do not want to inadvertently read a
proposed quiz solution, while not assuming that all solutions posted to
the list revolve around quizzes.

(In general, though, I'm not enamored of "rules"; it's more a matter of
a general etiquette suggestion.  [SOLUTION] is pretty general, has been
used in the past for various posts, and should not be conflated with any
particular sub-topic. )

Thanks,


James B.



--

http://www.ruby-doc.org       - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com      - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com     - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com   - Building Better Tools
James G. (Guest)
on 2006-01-07 18:48
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 6, 2006, at 11:37 PM, James B. wrote:

> James Edward G. II wrote:
>
>> I'm not clear on what you are asking me for here.  You want the
>> [QUIZ] rule and no [SOLUTION] rule?  Do I have that right?
>
> I'm saying that [SOLUTION] by itself does not imply [QUIZ]; all
> quiz-related posts (initial quiz details, questions about the quiz
> in particular or quizzes in general, solutions t quizzes, etc.)
> should have QUIZ in the subject.

That's a good point.  You're right.

> Adding SOLUTION to that subject line (i.e. [QUIZ SOLUTION]) would
> then make it clearer for folks who do not want to inadvertently
> read a proposed quiz solution, while not assuming that all
> solutions posted to the list revolve around quizzes.

If I do this though we now have two new rules:  [QUIZ] and [QUIZ
SOLUTION].  I don't want to get too draconian with Ruby Q. procedure.

I'm not too worried about people bumping into solutions accidentally
either, since the "no spoiler period" handles this quite well, in my
opinion.

I'll add a suggestion to the quizzes for a [QUIZ] in the subject and
we can see if that changes anything...

Thanks to all for bringing this to my attention.

James Edward G. II
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2006-01-08 02:17
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 02:37:48PM +0900, James B. wrote:
> Adding SOLUTION to that subject line (i.e. [QUIZ SOLUTION]) would then
> make it clearer for folks who do not want to inadvertently read a
> proposed quiz solution, while not assuming that all solutions posted to
> the list revolve around quizzes.

Holy cow, we're talking about namespaces.

--
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-08 02:50
(Received via mailing list)
Chad P. wrote:
> ...
>
> Holy cow, we're talking about namespaces.
>

Yeah, well, I didn't want to bring that up, but that's in a nutshell.

(So I guess we can refer people to past threads on picking names for
third-party Ruby libraries, and why people should pause before claiming
a fairly generic or common name for things.  Or something.)

James


--

http://www.ruby-doc.org       - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com      - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com     - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com   - Building Better Tools
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.