On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Adam P. [email protected]
wrote:
names.each(&method(:puts))
Would probably be the most idiomatic way.
That’s a fairly sweeping statement. I know more than the tiniest bit of Ruby
and I prefer { |name| puts name } to &method(:puts). More than prefer, in
fact, I would never use the latter.
In this case you’d probably rather want to use “puts names” and avoid
explicit iteration altogether. 
Kind regards
robert
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM, David M. [email protected]
wrote:
Not too long ago I found
http://drmcawesome.com/FunctionCompositionInRubywhich builds a
consistent-ish way of doing this chaining.
class Proc
def |(other)
lambda { |*args| self[other[*args]] }
end
end
class Symbol
def <(other)
self.to_proc | other.to_proc
end
def >(other)
other.to_proc | self.to_proc
end
end
Model.find(:all).map &(:size>:others>:something)
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 09:00:29 AM Ilias L. wrote:
On 6 Ιούν, 02:42, David M. [email protected] wrote:
It doesn’t seem that “violation” was the primary concern, so much as that
there wasn’t enough reliable information to back it up. If that wasn’t
the case, I have to imagine that “notability” would’ve kicked in." The article is one of these “I want to attack the guy without
crossing the Wikipedia blatant personnal attack line” "
That was one opinion. Others were:
“Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a blog.”
“the problem here is that while you might have found the article useful,
we
cannot guarantee its reliability and that’s a big problem.”
Note that even the quote you pointed out suggests that it doesn’t
cross that
line. If the issue were only that it was a personal attack, or abusive,
it
could’ve probably been rewritten from a neutral point of view. The more
obvious criteria for deletion are whether or not it’s actually notable,
or
contains any verifiable information.
The most important thing to learn is:
when is it “expressing negative feelings” and when is it "defamation
of character":
Legal threats again?There is no threat, you just interpret one.
Then what would you call this?
“If you (people) continue to attack me on a professional level, I’ll
have to react at some point.”
This immediately after your comment about defamation of character. I
suppose
it’s theoretically possible you didn’t intend it, but the subtext is
clear:
Stop saying mean things about me or I’ll sue for defamation.
Is this the only way you can get anyone to take you seriously?
Alright, I’ll use your source this time:
[…] - aborted reading, due to time constraints.
Bullshit. We’ve already established that you have more than enough time,
mostly because of how inefficient your methods are. You’ve already spent
more
time responding to me than it would take to answer the questions asked
in some
of your recent topics.
I don’t care if you (or people of your kind) take me serious.
Yes, you do, or why would you continue to threaten me (or people of “my
kind”,
whatever that is) with legal action?
For that matter, why would you continue to ask questions? You even
pointed out
that James G.'s solution “looks very good, and seems to work as
expected” –
surely there would be an advantage to having someone who can
consistently
provide solutions like that actually take you seriously, instead of
doing
their best to ignore you?
I respect people which have the discipline to stay unbiased, even if
they have possible negative personal feelings against me (e.g. because
the dislike mey personal writing style, which is part of my
individuality.).
“Part of your individuality” apparently involves:
There’s individuality, and then there’s rudeness. If “part of your
individuality” is to be insufferably rude to those who are genuinely
trying to
help you, that suggests you’re the sort of individual I wouldn’t want to
know.
I respect people which understand that there is a difference between
“analytic ability” and “knowledge”, and that knowledge can many times
reduce the analytic ability, thus it must be assimilated with care.
In other words: You actually want to know less, not more. Wow.
Stay in-topic and in-context - or stay out of the topics.
You owe this not only to me, but to every current and future reader of
the archives.
First: I don’t owe you anything. I gave you the benefit of the doubt
when I
first started reading, but given responses like these, nope, not even
that.
Second: This is an open forum. You in no way control it, and neither do
I. You
have no more call than I do to tell anyone to “stay out of the topics.”
It’s far more professional than to
destroy a clearly technical thread with 80% irrelevant content.
Ilias, as unlikely as it is that you’ll actually read this far – you
seem to
have far more time to write a response than you do to actually read what
you’re responding to – seriously, consider this:
Well above 90% of the threads on this list do not end up this way.
Most simple questions are answered quickly, within a single message, and
several people will rush to respond with an answer.
Most threads which devolve into offtopic stuff like this end up with one
or
two people arguing back and forth, or with a group of people on both
sides.
It’s much rarer for there to be one person arguing against every single
other
poster who has an opinion. Usually this indicates a newbie who’s asked a
stupid question, so usually it’s friendly, they learn what they need to
learn,
and they come back more intelligent – so it’s even less common for
everyone
who has an opinion on someone’s etiquette or personal conduct to side
against
them.
Well over half your threads end up this way, with three or four
well-respected
people telling you the same things I have been, quite a few avoiding the
discussion but talking about how to add you to a killfile, and several
chiming
in every now and then with cheap shots.
This is incredibly unusual. I can’t ever remember seeing this kind of
behavior with other people in the years I’ve been active here. Even
spammers
don’t elicit the same amount of contempt you have from the entire
community.
If you would like to not have “80% irrelevant content,” it is in your
own best
interest to figure out what it is about your attitude and conduct that
leads
to this.
It’s also in the best interests of the community, because personal
issues
aside, it’s clear that you are intelligent enough to have something to
contribute, and I’d much rather have you as a productive member of the
community than effectively a troll. But no amount of “posting on-topic”
will
do that. That’s something you have to do yourself.
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:50:33 AM Ilias L. wrote:
That was one opinion.
[…]
This was the initial deletion reason (and the reality).
Actually, not really. Even in the inital reason (which has no special
status
above the others), we see the actual reason: “In any case, no
third-party
reliable coverage seems to exist on the guy (despite high Ghits of
course) so
there’s really nothing to build an article from.”
Exactly one other comment mentions this being an attack. There’s another
one
that’s vague, and another two for “keep”, one which says: “The article’s
tone
isn’t vengeful or accusing either. If Paris Hilton has an article, then
why
not Ilias?”
Maybe it was the reality, but I can’t tell from looking at that deletion
decision, though I agree with the decision on other grounds. (There’s
all
sorts of reliable sources for information about Paris Hilton, and like
her or
not, she’s notable.)
[…]
aborted reading (It’s just too much babbling).
Called it. Plenty of time, but no patience.
Still odd to see a TL;DR on ruby-talk, though.
On 8 Ιούν, 08:06, David M. [email protected] wrote:
[…] - (excellent analysis which quotes some anonymous comments and a
fascinating analogy to Paris Hilton)
Now I see!
I accept what is proofed without doubt:
The article (written mostly by one person and a 2nd one which added
some spices, both from the python domain) was not deleted because it
was crossing the “personal attack line” of wikipedia (= writing
nonsense about a person on a personal/professional level, without any
backup)
The article was deleted, because of the “notability” (= my person is
not notable enough to get an wikipedia article).
And then one wonders why I neither respect you (people) nor take you
serious.
See, I don’t care if I’m notable or not.
I’ll just repeat what I’ve said earlier, as this is the main essence:
“If you (people) continue to attack me on a professional level,
I’ll
have to react at some point.”
.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Ilias L. [email protected]
wrote:
I’ll just repeat what I’ve said earlier, as this is the main essence:
“If you (people) continue to attack me on a professional level,
I’ll
have to react at some point.”
Please Do. Empty threats are more boring than empty threads.
–
Phillip G.
A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
– Leibnitz
On 7 Ιούν, 18:32, David M. [email protected] wrote:
That was one opinion.
[…]
This was the initial deletion reason (and the reality).
[…]
aborted reading (It’s just too much babbling).
Have fun!
.
And then one wonders why I neither respect you (people) nor take you
serious.See, I don’t care if I’m notable or not.
I’ll just repeat what I’ve said earlier, as this is the main essence:
“If you (people) continue to attack me on a professional level,
I’ll
have to react at some point.”
ilias, it’s this continued escalation on your part that seems to prove
your detractors claims of trolling are correct.
it doesn’t help that your past interactions have created what appears to
be a rather low reputation that, unsurprisingly, follows you around.
i suspect you’ve cooked your goose with the above, and your time on this
list is ending as people simply stop replying. but on the chance
that you’re truly trying to productively engage and are also weary of
these pointless exchanges, consider the following:
bottom line…prove your detractors wrong and the interactions will
likely change for the better.
if your intentions are something else, at least spice things up a bit
and make the posts entertaining. they’re just too serious. show some
wit a al oscar wilde’s “the secret of life is to appreciate the pleasure
of being terribly, terribly deceived.” or try getting someone unhinged
enough that they let loose with ascii art of
Tar-Baby - Wikipedia or
http://thechocl8tdiaries.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/tarbaby1.jpg
or maybe this is all just a tricky on-line psychology experiment on
coders courtesy of the u. of somewhere…
On 8 , 17:16, Phillip G. [email protected]
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Ilias L. [email protected] wrote:
I’ll just repeat what I’ve said earlier, as this is the main essence:
“If you (people) continue to attack me on a professional level,
I’ll
have to react at some point.”Please Do. Empty threats are more boring than empty threads.
This is neither a threat, nor is it empty.
But who can explain this to paranoid minds.
.
He’s a misanthropist. He seems to just troll under the guise of being
misunderstood them threaten a defamation lawsuit which he really can’t
pursue. He’s very two dimensional.
On 8 , 20:22, Stu [email protected] wrote:
He’s a misanthropist. He seems to just troll under the guise of being
misunderstood them threaten a defamation lawsuit which he really can’t
pursue. He’s very two dimensional.
This is a excellent summary.
And an ideal epilogue to close this thread.
So, good night to all!
.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:16:51PM +0900, Phillip G. wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Ilias L. [email protected] wrote:
I’ll just repeat what I’ve said earlier, as this is the main essence:
“If you (people) continue to attack me on a professional level,
I’ll
have to react at some point.”Please Do. Empty threats are more boring than empty threads.
Has anyone asked how he’d react? I’m curious about what sort of
reaction is even possible in this case.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
Has anyone asked how he’d react? I’m curious about what sort of
reaction is even possible in this case.
It’s buried in the thread, but Ilias threatens (emptily, so far) to
sue whoever is pointing out his trollish nature.
–
Phillip G.
A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
– Leibnitz
On 8 , 21:00, Phillip G. [email protected]
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
Mr. Perrin, it seems that your messages do not arrive on
comp.lang.ruby (usenet).
Has anyone asked how he’d react?
Why should they ask? It’s much more fun to let the paranoia do the
I’m curious about what sort of
reaction is even possible in this case.
There are several options, but you cannot uncover them.
I react already, but until they realize how, it’ll be too late.
It’s buried in the thread, but Ilias threatens (emptily, so far) to
sue whoever is pointing out his trollish nature.
So much miss-information in just one sentence - just fascination!
But now it’s really time to close this thread.
Good night, lovely friendly people!
.
2011/6/8 Ilias L. [email protected]:
So much miss-information in just one sentence - just fascination!
So sue me. 
–
Phillip G.
A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
– Leibnitz
On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 01:20:26 PM Ilias L. wrote:
On 8 , 21:00, Phillip G. [email protected]
Has anyone asked how he’d react?
Why should they ask? It’s much more fun to let the paranoia do the
In other words, you mention laws that seem relevant (until I do five
minutes
of research), and that you’ll have to “take action”.
You see this as “not a threat”, yet you admit, right here, that you
don’t
clarify things because it’s “more fun to let paranoia do the…”
something.
What, do the work of convincing us that it’s a legal threat?
It seems pretty clear that your intention was for people to interpret
this as
a legal threat. I see only two possible interpretations: Either you
actually
do intend to threaten (or at least intimidate) people with the force of
law,
or you only make it seem as though you would do so because it’s fun to
see how
people react.
So, either you are genuinely making legal threats, or you are by
definition a
troll. Now that is fun.
I’m curious about what sort of
reaction is even possible in this case.There are several options, but you cannot uncover them.
I react already, but until they realize how, it’ll be too late.
Well, that’s ominous. Looks like you’ve dropped from legal threats to
vague,
unspecified threats. I’m quaking in my little boots.
Here’s the funniest part:
It’s buried in the thread, but Ilias threatens (emptily, so far) to
sue whoever is pointing out his trollish nature.So much miss-information in just one sentence - just fascination!
I suppose some of it might be, but it seems pretty obvious that either
you do
make exactly those threats, or you are exactly a troll. At least one of
these
things is true, as you’ve demonstrated here.
But now it’s really time to close this thread.
I might exit it as well, though. Ilias is far less productive to talk to
than
the most clueless newbie, the most diehard religious fundamentalist, or
the
most stubbornly dogmatic zealot of any kind. What makes him so
frustrating is
that despite initiating the conversation (by, for example, asking a
question),
he tends to outright dismiss any responses, rather than actually argue
against
them.
Most of his responses, and nearly all of the responses to anything I
wrote,
fall into these categories:
There’s also the most recent, isolated case of sarcastically repeating
my
message without once pointing out what makes it so ridiculous.
Every now and then, perhaps every five or ten messages, I actually get a
response to my point, and it’s a fantastically poor response – like
earlier
in this thread where he actually responded, once, to my observation that
the
Wikipedia article seems to be removed for notability reasons, rather
than
personal attack. The response was to take a quote from the page I linked
to,
out of context.
When I put it back in context, he gets sarcastic and reminds me that he
doesn’t take me seriously, and we’re back to this crap. So there’s
almost a
discussion going on, but the signal-to-noise ratio is just impossible.
I doubt his response to this message will be any different. In fact, I’d
bet
money he doesn’t read this far – TL;DR again. The killfile option is
definitely looking more attractive all the time.
On 4 , 14:47, Ilias L. [email protected] wrote:
way:
names.each do
print item # “item” is used by default
endIs this possible, without going to C-level?
related issue
Provide Default Variables for Array#each and other iterators
.
On 9 Ιούν, 08:44, David M. [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 01:20:26 PM Ilias L. wrote:
On 8 Éïýí, 21:00, Phillip G. [email protected]
Has anyone asked how he’d react?
Why should they ask? It’s much more fun to let the paranoia do the
In other words,
[…] not readed
Seriously, it’s time to release this poor thread from this off-topic
torture.
Mr. Masover, you are dismissed.
.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs