On 16 , 20:26, Matt H. [email protected] wrote:
Then this is the wrong list. ruby-talk does not exist to cover prose or
literary matters. What you need is a thesaurus.
This is the correct list for my request.
What I need is, just a few more professionals with have the ability to
stay strictly in topic, or to shut up.
But I guess I have to give up the hope that some will pop up.
.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Jason R. [email protected]
wrote:
If you want professionalism, you have to be professional yourself, something
that
you very rarely show. This huge thread has given you more than what you “need”.
Come up with something yourself instead of trying to waste anyone else’s time
here.
If it wouldn’t set a bad precedent, I’d be arguing to simply ban
Ilias, nd be done with it. He’s gone above and beyond the call of duty
as a troll. He could get the Trollish Medal of Honor, as far as I am
concerned.
As it is, I’m sorely wishing GMail could filter individual messages in
conversation view–disabling conversations isn’t a workable solution,
and I don’t always have access to an email client, much less one that
supports filtering. Alas.
–
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 Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:26:30AM +0900, Matt H. wrote:
literary matters. What you need is a thesaurus.
That’s a very good point.
Of course, I wonder why he hasn’t just decided to throw away a word:
alias relative require_relative
If the seven letter thing is really a hard-and-fast requirement:
alias relativ require_relative
That’s as good as anyone is likely to get without inventing words from
scratch, in which case abcdefg is fine. As for anything else, as has
been pointed out, this subject is substantively answered, and further
complaints from Ilias are just trolling.
On 16 Ιούν, 21:28, Phillip G. [email protected]
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Jason R. [email protected] wrote:
If you want professionalism, you have to be professional yourself,
something that
you very rarely show. This huge thread has given you more than what you
“need”.
Come up with something yourself instead of trying to waste anyone else’s time
here.If it wouldn’t set a bad precedent, I’d be arguing to simply ban
Ilias, nd be done with it. He’s gone above and beyond the call of duty
as a troll. He could get the Trollish Medal of Honor, as far as I am
concerned.
The “Trollish Medal of Honor” goes to the self-proclaimed “Ruby T.
Police”.
You are the ones which are “trolling” (off-topic, hijacking threads,
personal nonsense, ridiculous and endless babbling subjecting an
individuals personal writing style).
But I start to believe that finally this is the ruby community
(because until now, I saw only 2 people intervene, with not more than
3 messages).
As it is, I’m sorely wishing GMail could filter individual messages in
conversation view–disabling conversations isn’t a workable solution,
and I don’t always have access to an email client, much less one that
supports filtering. Alas.
Why don’t you simply relay my messages to the trash?
“More actions”
“Filter messages like these”
or
“More actions”
“Mute”
(I write only in my topics, thus it’s easy for everyone to place a
filter (based on topic title).)
.
On 16 Ιούν, 21:24, Jason R. [email protected] wrote:
But I guess I have to give up the hope that some will pop up.
If you want professionalism, you have to be professional yourself, something
that you very rarely show. This huge thread has given you more than what you
“need”. Come up with something yourself instead of trying to waste anyone else’s
time here.
How disappointing.
One more off-topic.
And just one (yes, just one) in-topic and in-context reply
(suggesting a word) in the overall thread.
A tragedy.
.
ilias: are you aware that you’re mad? If not, how’s about a vote as a
new topic?
Hey everyone.
I’m new to Ruby and finding the language pretty neat.
I think this might help in solving Ilias’ problem of finding a word:
enum = (‘aaaaaaa’…‘zzzzzzz’).to_enum
enum.each do |word|
puts word + “\n”
end
He can go through each one and find what he likes.
You’re welcome. 
On 16 , 22:35, Mike M. [email protected] wrote:
[…]
I guess it’s time to give up.
It’s just to much off-topic trolling.
.
The OP asked for comments on the proposal for a new, more descriptive
name
for “require_relative”. I have a hard time remembering if it is
“require_relative” or “relative_require”, which causes me pain and grief
whenever I reach for “require_relative” as I’m coding. Because of this I
would like to leave my comment.
As I understand it, “require_relative” was introduced because of a
fundamental change to LOAD_PATH in Ruby 1.9. Having the current
directory in
the LOAD_PATH was deemed to be a problem, and was removed for security
concerns and a sense of correctness. This meant that “require” would no
longer load files based on where the loading files location. Now,
obviously,
this caused issues because behavior was changed, and a way was needed to
fix
the broken code. Hence “require_relative” was introduced as the
solution.
The stated question that began this thread is what alternative to
“require_relative” would you choose, asking only that the new single
word
was 7 characters or less. I have a word in mind, but let me first
hypothesize on why “require_relative” was chosen in the first place. On
the
surface having a multi-word name for this functionality seems to go
counter
intuitive to Ruby’s ease and flow that we all love. Why would something
so
basic have a name that was so uncomfortable? As I said earlier, I have a
hard time even keeping the name right in my head! Why would the Ruby
culture
create and propagate something so out of place and ill-tasting?
Why indeed. I have given this much thought. I have pondered on this
subject
throughout the interactions on this thread. Why is it so wordy? Almost
overly descriptive? Where is the sweetness I am used to? Why hasn’t Ruby
opened her arms to embrace me with her syntactic sugar? Why? Why Matz,
why?
Could it be that “require_relative” is just a bad idea? Could it be that
“require_relative” was left intentionally wordy as some sort of syntax
vinegar to push people away from using that functionality? Not a
punishment
per se, but a subtle reminder that something is wrong with the
assumptions
that the code is making? A sore thumb on otherwise healthy code? But if
that
is the case, then what shorter name can we give to “relative_require”
that
would still communicate how ill-fitting and out of place the
functionality
is to Ruby? Preferably in 7 characters or less?
My friends, I have the answer:
alias ilias require_relative
I sincerely hope my suggestion, a single word with 7 characters or less,
can
help bring some closure to this topic.
~Mike
2011/6/16 Ilias L. [email protected]
I guess it’s time to give up.
It’s just to much off-topic trolling.
Trolling? I’m offended! I am certainly not trolling. My message was very
on-topic. And my suggested solution works. I even tested it and
everything.
involve
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Sam D. [email protected]
wrote:
involve
While “involve” is a single word, it is 8 characters and not 7
characters or
less. It appears that “ilias” is the only acceptable answer.
On 16 , 23:13, Mike M. [email protected] wrote:
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]
2011/6/16 Ilias L. [email protected]
I guess it’s time to give up.
It’s just to much off-topic trolling.
Trolling? I’m offended! I am certainly not trolling. My message was very
on-topic. And my suggested solution works. I even tested it and everything.
I must admit, you are a high-quality troll - but still a troll.
.
Mike, involve is seven characters. I wonder if that will satisfy him?
You can’t count.
And furthermore, you can’t read.
optional:
Who is the real troll here?
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Sam D. [email protected]
wrote:
You can’t count.
And furthermore, you can’t read.
optional:
- ideally a 7 letter word
Who is the real troll here?
Why are you guys picking on me? I gave you a perfectly acceptable
solution!
On 16 , 23:17, Sam D. [email protected] wrote:
to find a one-word alias.
involve
This one sounds good!
I think I’ve a new favourite!
involve ‘lib/alter’
locally ‘lib/alter’ # locally located file
uniload ‘lib/alter’ # universal load
request ‘lib/alter’ #
include ‘lib/alter’ # the commonly known “include”
relative ‘lib/alter’ #
.
Right then. Off you go Ilias. Go and write your new language.
I take it the seven letter requirement was so that all the imports are
aligned? I’d change relative to relativ. Much better that way.
On 16 Jun 2011 21:30, “Ilias L.” [email protected] wrote:
involve
This one sounds good!
I think I’ve a new favourite!
70 messages in and the topic becomes clear: entertain me with 7-letter
words.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Sam D. [email protected]
wrote:
You can’t count.
And furthermore, you can’t read.
It is seven letters.
Of course, it suffers from a glaring similarity with the include
keyword, hinting more at extension of something that exists, rather
than the requirement of something, but you win some and you lose some.
–
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
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