On Saturday, June 18, 2011 04:45:06 PM Ilias L. wrote:
On 18 Ιούν, 05:40, David M. [email protected] wrote:
We’ve been over this, and I honestly thought you understood last time.
[…]
There is no “we”.
You have to understand that I don’t read your writings.
Demonstrably false. Remember this?
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 04:40:50 PM Ilias L. wrote:
Even on Windows, the working directory isn’t always where the main file
is.
Yes, you’re right.
I forgot those cases.
So while you’ve found me to be helpful as recently as Wednesday, you
also seem
to have trouble remembering a distinction I made on Wednesday.
I’d say something like “The plot thickens,” but honestly, who didn’t see
this
coming?
On 19 Ιούν, 03:18, Ted H. [email protected] wrote:
- def rr(path); require_relative path; end
[…]
Whenever I think I can close this thread, something new pops up.
rr for “require_relative”
r for “require”
similar to
p for “puts”
Thus everything stays as it is (require, require_relative) and the
shortcuts (r, rr) are introduced.
rr ‘local/mylib’
r ‘guisystem’
.
On Sunday, June 19, 2011 12:20:28 PM Ilias L. wrote:
I’ve reached my goal in this thread, so everything (except the
essence) is on inhibition now.
And of course, your goals are the only thing that matters.
Why should I post for any other reason?
Note to readers:
Possibly some friend of Mr. Masover contacts him in private and
explains him.
Actually, someone did. Can you guess what they said?
They said to stop feeding the troll. They said that you’ll never change,
that
you’re not capable of being a productive member of the community at this
point, even if you wanted to.
I suppose I should’ve listened, because you’ve proven them right every
step of
the way.
In any case, if you actually want to “close this thread”, doing so by
fiat
doesn’t work. There’s a very simple way that does, and I’m surprised you
so
rarely try it: Simply stop responding.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:41 PM, David M. [email protected]
wrote:
In any case, if you actually want to “close this thread”, doing so by fiat
doesn’t work. There’s a very simple way that does, and I’m surprised you so
rarely try it: Simply stop responding.
I think that deserves a Scumbag Ilias:
http://i.imgur.com/UGHl1.jpg
On 19 Ιούν, 21:41, David M. [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, June 19, 2011 12:20:28 PM Ilias L. wrote:
I’ve reached my goal in this thread, so everything (except the
essence) is on inhibition now.
And of course, your goals are the only thing that matters.
[…] - (once more, off context, as he seems he cannot focus on a
point)
Yes, goal reached, inhibition becomes active (even for information
from persons that I take serious or respect)
Note to readers:
Possibly some friend of Mr. Masover contacts him in private and
explains him.
[…] - (babbling)
Someone (non-freak-show member) should really explain him.
In any case,
[…] - (processing)
Nothing could be more irrelevant than your suggestions subjecting
processing.
.
2011/6/16 Ilias L. [email protected]:
Is it really so difficult for you people to solve a given problem,
even if you personally don’t agree that it is a problem?
Let me please try to understand this super-thread:
- You (Ilias) like the funcionality provided by require_relative.
- But you don’t like the name (too long or whatever).
- The rest all the world seem to feel ok with current name.
- You know that you can make a custom alias for your own usage.
- But that’s not enough for you, and you want a cool new name (max 7
chars) to be included in Ruby core.
Do I miss something?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 09:49:03AM +0900, Iaki Baz C. wrote:
2011/6/17 Ilias L. [email protected]:
require! “lib/baselib”
require “sinatra”
Yes, this could be the “winner”.
“require!” => 8 chars, invalid.
. . . but only seven of them are letters.
Anyway, I don’t care, and I’m not sure Ilias does either. Please stop
feeding this thread.
2011/6/17 Ilias L. [email protected]:
require! “lib/baselib”
require “sinatra”
Yes, this could be the “winner”.
“require!” => 8 chars, invalid.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:41:17AM +0900, David M. wrote:
I suppose I should’ve listened, because you’ve proven them right every
step of the way.
In any case, if you actually want to “close this thread”, doing so by
fiat doesn’t work. There’s a very simple way that does, and I’m
surprised you so rarely try it: Simply stop responding.
Oddly enough, you should be following your own advice. Sure, you didn’t
declare the thread closed, but you are feeding the “Scumbag Steve” of
this list.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 07:17:42AM +0900, Tony A. wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:41 PM, David M. [email protected] wrote:
In any case, if you actually want to “close this thread”, doing so by
fiat doesn’t work. There’s a very simple way that does, and I’m
surprised you so rarely try it: Simply stop responding.
I think that deserves a Scumbag Ilias:
http://i.imgur.com/UGHl1.jpg
That’s . . . brilliant. You deserve a cookie.
2011/6/17 Ilias L. [email protected]:
“!” is used as a convention, to clarify that a method “modifies the
object”
This misstates the existing convention; see below.
“!” could be used for stand-alone functions (e.g. the “flat” Kernel
functions which do not operate strictly on an object) to clarify (by
convention) “you should know what you do, possible risks” or simply
“alternate implementation”.
This second thing is actually the current convention for “!” for
normal methods (e.g., not just “flat” Kernel functions.): “!”
indicates a more-dangerous alternative when the base name is already
used. It doesn’t always indicate a mutating method, and mutating
methods don’t always have it.
OTOH, require_relative is much more clear as to what it is doing than
require! would be, amd. anyway, require! is 8 characters, not 7.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Christopher D. [email protected]
wrote:
OTOH, require_relative is much more clear as to what it is doing than
require! would be, amd. anyway, require! is 8 characters, not 7.
require_relative is completely fine. There is almost no sensible
discussion here, and certainly not one worth 100+ posts, complete with
people letting Ilias rile them up so that he can truncate text in his
reply, call it babbling and declare the thread closed and “dismiss”
people, like he owns the place, which just further aggravates people.
(Hint: it’s intentional. He’s being a dick. On purpose.)
If anyone else had posted his original “scenario”, I’d bet it would
have been largely ignored.
Can we stop being trolled now? Even if he’s somehow not intending to
be a troll, it’s all the same up to trolleomorphism.
On 20 juin 2011, at 16:17, Adam P. wrote:
Can we stop being trolled now? Even if he’s somehow not intending to
be a troll, it’s all the same up to trolleomorphism.
Trolleomorphism or in other words: if it walks like a troll and quacks
like a troll, it’s a troll.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
Oddly enough, you should be following your own advice. Sure, you didn’t
declare the thread closed, but you are feeding the “Scumbag Steve” of
this list.
OTOH, this has Ilias nicely contained in one spot, instead of him
being all over the place polluting actually interesting discussions.
I’m running out of popcorn, though.
–
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
My top 10 suggestions (7 letters are too few):
- what?
- requirez
- winning!
- google
- magnets
- boxxy!
- logophobia
- potato
- nomnomnom
And my number one suggestion… [drumroll]
- mangina
On 20 Ιούν, 16:54, Christopher D. [email protected] wrote:
This could become my new favourite.
“!” is used as a convention, to clarify that a method “modifies the
object”
This misstates the existing convention; see below.
ok
“!” could be used for stand-alone functions (e.g. the “flat” Kernel
functions which do not operate strictly on an object) to clarify (by
convention) “you should know what you do, possible risks” or simply
“alternate implementation”.
This second thing is actually the current convention for “!” for
normal methods (e.g., not just “flat” Kernel functions.): “!”
indicates a more-dangerous alternative when the base name is already
used.
Which would mean the rule apply, and the question is:
Is “require_relative” more dangerous than “require”, thus “require!”
would fit the naming-convention?
I say:
yes, because you can include everything from your source-tree, where
“require” loads only from predefined paths.
It doesn’t always indicate a mutating method, and mutating
methods don’t always have it.
ok
OTOH, require_relative is much more clear as to what it is doing than
require! would be, amd.
This is not the topic.
anyway, require! is 8 characters, not 7.
The requirement “7 chars” was an optional one.
.
On 11 , 20:35, Ilias L. [email protected] wrote:
Which name would you select and for what reasons?
Requirements
must:
optional:
Solutions:
require! ‘lib/alter’ # 2011-06-17 by Gary W.
rr ‘lib/alter’ # 2011-06-19 by Ted H.
involve ‘lib/alter’ # 2011-06-16 by Sam D.
locally ‘lib/alter’ # 2011-06-11 by Rob B.
uniload ‘lib/alter’ # my
request ‘lib/alter’ # my
include ‘lib/alter’ # my
relative ‘lib/alter’ # my
#old
require_relative ‘lib/baselib’
require ‘sinatra"’
#new
require! ‘lib/baselib"’
require ‘sinatra’
Applying the change:
module Kernel
alias require! require_relative
end
I like the word “involve” more, but as “require!” reminds clearly the
original “require”, it’s the first choice.
2nd choice would be to use “rr” and “r” (similar to “p” for “puts”)
.
On 20 , 07:43, Phillip G. [email protected]
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
Oddly enough, you should be following your own advice. Sure, you didn’t
declare the thread closed, but you are feeding the “Scumbag Steve” of
this list.
OTOH, this has Ilias nicely contained in one spot, instead of him
being all over the place polluting actually interesting discussions.
I write only in threads that I open (making it simple for people to
filter me out, friendly as I am)
What’s “contained in one spot” is the “freak-show”.
Nicely archived!
I’m running out of popcorn, though.
.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 01:20:26AM +0900, Ilias L. wrote:
On 11 Ιούν, 20:35, Ilias L. [email protected] wrote:
relative ‘lib/alter’ # my
Liar.
