From why at poignantguide.net Thu Sep 16 01:22:00 2004 From: why at poignantguide.net (why the lucky stiff) Date: Thu Sep 16 01:22:26 2004 Subject: recommended? In-Reply-To: References: <406B0771.80808@poignantguide.net> Message-ID: <414922F8.2070309@poignantguide.net> Thanks for this response, Bruce. I thought I had responded at the time. Mentally I guess. This one's for the record. Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > I'm a newbie to programming and to Ruby, so maybe I'm a good test? My > only coding background is with XSLT, and I work with a lot of text and > XML (I'm a scholar). > > I find I learn by doing more than anything, with well-explained, > complete (no code fragments please), and practical examples. > I hope to increase the number of examples that are as you've described. Still, the nature of this book demands some esoteric examples that border more on becoming riddles than actual code. It's more important to me that this book be a novel than a manual. My priority is to peak people's interest in the language by telling a fine story and creating something wholy new. So I look at the code examples in the same way I look at dialogue or motifs. > Beyond that, I think the writing tends too-often towards being -- sorry > to be blunt -- pretentious. As you write (and I make my living writing, > so do this myself), ask yourself whether you are communicating what you > need to communicate in the most direct way. You're absolutely right. I don't feel like I come off as egotistical or anything -- so I probably wouldn't agree with that slant off the word "pretentious." But I do talk inanely and galavant anywhere I please. The distractions and the chaos in the text gets worse. When instruction happens, I try to be focused and natural and succinct. But the surrounding themes fall all over each other. I'm trying to write the kind of book I've always wanted to read. At this point, I'm more concerned about finishing the book than tailoring my style. I'll figure out how to write over time. If there's any specific parts of the book that drive you nuts, I'd really enjoy pulling them apart. _why From why at poignantguide.net Thu Sep 16 01:35:03 2004 From: why at poignantguide.net (why the lucky stiff) Date: Thu Sep 16 01:38:26 2004 Subject: Chapter Five Leaks Message-ID: <41492607.2030200@poignantguide.net> Hi, a bit of news on the (Poignant) Guide. Okay, okay, okay, I've taken forever. But I said I'd take forever, so we're fine, right? Chapter Five is so close, a page maybe. I don't know why the drawings took so long but they did. And this chapter is massive, the largest in the book. But it's on its way, I swear on a pile of Sailor Moon action figures that it's just about here. As proof, I'm including a few choice moments from the next chapter to give you hope and show you my appreciation for your long wait. Many thanks for all the letters which are just like mini-elk horns, somewhat embarassing to put on display around my staircase, but great for prodding me from behind. _why -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dr.cham-1.gif Type: image/gif Size: 51420 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/poignant-stiffs/attachments/20040915/bf67aceb/dr.cham-1-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: the.goat-1.gif Type: image/gif Size: 29623 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/poignant-stiffs/attachments/20040915/bf67aceb/the.goat-1-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: filmstrip-1.gif Type: image/gif Size: 88736 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/poignant-stiffs/attachments/20040915/bf67aceb/filmstrip-1-0001.gif From bdarcus at myrealbox.com Thu Sep 16 07:43:45 2004 From: bdarcus at myrealbox.com (Bruce D'Arcus) Date: Thu Sep 16 07:43:25 2004 Subject: recommended? In-Reply-To: <414922F8.2070309@poignantguide.net> References: <406B0771.80808@poignantguide.net> <414922F8.2070309@poignantguide.net> Message-ID: On Sep 16, 2004, at 1:22 AM, why the lucky stiff wrote: > The distractions and the chaos in the text gets worse. When > instruction happens, I try to be focused and natural and succinct. > But the surrounding themes fall all over each other. I'm trying to > write the kind of book I've always wanted to read. I'm just emphasizing that you always keep site of the goal, whatever it is. I'm not particularly interested in being entertained when reading about programming; I want to be illuminated. I want to understand how to do it, which is different than just being shown what to do. So, if your writing helps me understand the principles of programming in a language like Ruby -- that must by definition go beyond "what to do" bluntness -- then great. > At this point, I'm more concerned about finishing the book than > tailoring my style. I'll figure out how to write over time. If > there's any specific parts of the book that drive you nuts, I'd really > enjoy pulling them apart. OK. Bruce From why at poignantguide.net Tue Sep 21 14:13:44 2004 From: why at poignantguide.net (why the lucky stiff) Date: Tue Sep 21 14:14:15 2004 Subject: Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby, Chapter Five: Them What Make the Rules and Them What Live the Dream Message-ID: <41506F58.2070904@poignantguide.net> Beloved friends and key witnesses: Holy highkick! I (at last) present chapter five! Fifty-two pages of spooky new adventures in Ruby. This is a big one for me: the book is now halfway. And I guarantee to you that -- should you read -- you will be in a new place, wading in the schemings of pygmy elephants and deer with powdered wigs. Travel now and read: http://poignantguide.net/ruby/ What is the (Poignant) Guide? I am here to tell you that it is a very obscure book, a minor ripple in the orchestrations of mankind, a scattered amalgamation of inky blotches and ridiculous code fragments -- at best -- a transcription of animal software from the original woodblock prints. And I haven't meant to corrupt the text with my snivelling biographies, but it has happened already, what can be done? A printable HTML version is available as well. You'll find a link to it and instructions for printing in Firefox at the Guide's site. Be aware, it's large as a squirrel heaven. Let it load, let it. Well, cheerio. Thankyou to Matz for his excellent resource "Ruby in a Nutshell". It's the employee handbook here at the plant. _why From rob at tarasis.net Tue Sep 21 15:33:11 2004 From: rob at tarasis.net (Robert McGovern) Date: Tue Sep 21 15:33:27 2004 Subject: Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby, Chapter Five: Them What Make the Rules and Them What Live the Dream In-Reply-To: <41506F58.2070904@poignantguide.net> References: <41506F58.2070904@poignantguide.net> Message-ID: <1095795191.41508229492bd@tarasis.net> || Beloved friends and key witnesses: Holy highkick! I (at last) present || chapter five! Hey congrats! || Fifty-two pages of spooky new adventures in Ruby. This is a big one || for me: the book is now halfway. And I guarantee to you that -- should || you read -- you will be in a new place, wading in the schemings of pygmy || elephants and deer with powdered wigs. My god you weren't kidding, I think I may be gone some time! Rob From bdarcus at myrealbox.com Wed Sep 22 07:22:09 2004 From: bdarcus at myrealbox.com (Bruce D'Arcus) Date: Wed Sep 22 07:21:59 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples Message-ID: Was just looking through the new chapter. As a general rule, shouldn't all code you offer as example be valid, only relying on standard libraries and such? E.g.: require 'endertromb' LoadError: No such file to load -- endertromb from (irb):51:in `require' from (irb):51 As a beginner, at that point I throw up my hands and stop reading. Bruce From why at poignantguide.net Wed Sep 22 09:27:15 2004 From: why at poignantguide.net (why the lucky stiff) Date: Wed Sep 22 09:27:22 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > Was just looking through the new chapter. As a general rule, shouldn't > all code you offer as example be valid, only relying on standard > libraries and such? E.g.: Obviously, I'm asking you to use some imagination with some of these examples. Does everything need to be concrete to be helpful? I can tell this is really frustrating you. Would it be helpful if I put the more esoteric examples in a different color so they're obvious? I need some room in here to write some bogus code. Can I get you to let me get away with it? This isn't a capital crime or anything. At some points, I'm just using the code as a plot device rather than a actual script. However, I can't speak to this technique's effectiveness. I'm goofing around with a buncha stuff in this book and I can only guess if any of it really works. If it drives a good amount of you nuts, I'll find something better. Is anyone else troubled by this? How much room do I have to goof off with the code? Thanks, Bruce. I really want to hear about the painful parts, it'll help me shape things significantly. _why From bdarcus at myrealbox.com Wed Sep 22 09:35:53 2004 From: bdarcus at myrealbox.com (Bruce D'Arcus) Date: Wed Sep 22 09:35:25 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> References: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> Message-ID: <5304072E-0C9C-11D9-9C92-000A95B10832@myrealbox.com> On Sep 22, 2004, at 9:27 AM, why the lucky stiff wrote: > Obviously, I'm asking you to use some imagination with some of these > examples. Does everything need to be concrete to be helpful? No, but it is helpful to be able to follow along with irb, just to see how the code works. So, "goofy" examples may be fine; I just want them to work. This has been my general experience learning anything related to code, whether with TeX, XSLT, etc.: I simply learn better if I have working code examples, even they aren't necessarily practical (though to be honest, it's easier if they are practical in a lot of cases). In that example, is there any reason you couldn't illustrate the same idea without the bogus "require"? Bruce From ian at slipdesign.com Wed Sep 22 12:08:04 2004 From: ian at slipdesign.com (ian kennedy) Date: Wed Sep 22 12:09:02 2004 Subject: poignant-stiffs Digest, Vol 7, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <200409221600.i8MG05Ke024708@rubyforge.org> References: <200409221600.i8MG05Ke024708@rubyforge.org> Message-ID: <95B14AD0-0CB1-11D9-BEF7-000A95CC2B1C@slipdesign.com> i would just like to say that as an absolute beginner with ruby and only limited programming experience (php and javascript, both of which i butcher), that i absolutely love the poignant guide. even at only halfway through it is the most accessible and exciting programming book i have ever read. the only thing that could make it better for me personally is a printable pdf. thank you, why. ian kennedy www.fiftymillimeter.com From why at poignantguide.net Wed Sep 22 14:20:40 2004 From: why at poignantguide.net (why the lucky stiff) Date: Wed Sep 22 14:21:14 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: <5304072E-0C9C-11D9-9C92-000A95B10832@myrealbox.com> References: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> <5304072E-0C9C-11D9-9C92-000A95B10832@myrealbox.com> Message-ID: <4151C278.7030701@poignantguide.net> Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > No, but it is helpful to be able to follow along with irb, just to see > how the code works. So, "goofy" examples may be fine; I just want > them to work. Yeah, you want practical examples. Does every example have to be practical? Can some be hypothetical? > In that example, is there any reason you couldn't illustrate the same > idea without the bogus "require"? Well, even without the 'require', the code doesn't function. The Endertromb constant is imaginary. _why From why at poignantguide.net Wed Sep 22 14:25:33 2004 From: why at poignantguide.net (why the lucky stiff) Date: Wed Sep 22 14:27:12 2004 Subject: poignant-stiffs Digest, Vol 7, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <95B14AD0-0CB1-11D9-BEF7-000A95CC2B1C@slipdesign.com> References: <200409221600.i8MG05Ke024708@rubyforge.org> <95B14AD0-0CB1-11D9-BEF7-000A95CC2B1C@slipdesign.com> Message-ID: <4151C39D.9060801@poignantguide.net> ian kennedy wrote: > i would just like to say that as an absolute beginner with ruby and > only limited programming experience (php and javascript, both of which > i butcher), that i absolutely love the poignant guide. even at only > halfway through it is the most accessible and exciting programming > book i have ever read. the only thing that could make it better for > me personally is a printable pdf. > > thank you, why. Cool, thanks for giving the guide a try. I really appreciate it. I've been working on a PDF, though I don't have anything that looks reasonably nice yet. But, hopefully, in the next few months it'll come together. I'm also rescanning and touching up the art to ensure the print quality is superb. _why From andrewj at bcm.tmc.edu Wed Sep 22 14:35:24 2004 From: andrewj at bcm.tmc.edu (Andrew R Jackson) Date: Wed Sep 22 14:35:41 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: <4151C278.7030701@poignantguide.net> Message-ID: <000201c4a0d2$ec47c7c0$3299f980@Sodaash> Hi why...question: Are you trying to compete with the many practical, boring, but interactive (Try It online) examples from the "Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide" at: http://www.ruby.ch/ProgrammingRuby/htmlC/ ?? Maybe you can make all the examples abstract? Or maybe impractical, at least? Refreshing change from the usual engineering-inspired mindset :) Just kidding. Some illustrative examples are fine. See Spot. See Spot run. I haven't seen a dog named Spot yet, but I got the point :) Keep up the good work. ARJ > -----Original Message----- > From: poignant-stiffs-bounces@rubyforge.org > [mailto:poignant-stiffs-bounces@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of > why the lucky stiff > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 12:21 PM > To: poignant-stiffs@rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: ch. 5 and code examples > > > Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > > No, but it is helpful to be able to follow along with irb, > just to see > > how the code works. So, "goofy" examples may be fine; I just want > > them to work. > > Yeah, you want practical examples. Does every example have to be > practical? Can some be hypothetical? > > > In that example, is there any reason you couldn't > illustrate the same > > idea without the bogus "require"? > > Well, even without the 'require', the code doesn't function. The > Endertromb constant is imaginary. > > _why > > _______________________________________________ > poignant-stiffs mailing list > poignant-stiffs@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/poignant> -stiffs > From bdarcus at myrealbox.com Wed Sep 22 14:39:31 2004 From: bdarcus at myrealbox.com (Bruce D'Arcus) Date: Wed Sep 22 14:39:52 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: <4151C278.7030701@poignantguide.net> References: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> <5304072E-0C9C-11D9-9C92-000A95B10832@myrealbox.com> <4151C278.7030701@poignantguide.net> Message-ID: On Sep 22, 2004, at 2:20 PM, why the lucky stiff wrote: > Does every example have to be practical? Can some be hypothetical? I suppose, so long as it's clear for the "dummies" when you're presenting hypotheticals and when you're presenting working examples. I could imagine doing that either in the text, or perhaps as you suggest, graphically. BTW, re: the PDF, I agree that'd be valuable. If you author this using redcloth, perhaps there's an easy way to spit out LaTeX code that can then be typeset with pdftex? Bruce From ckhoge at mac.com Wed Sep 22 14:45:30 2004 From: ckhoge at mac.com (Chris Hoge) Date: Wed Sep 22 14:45:51 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: References: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> <5304072E-0C9C-11D9-9C92-000A95B10832@myrealbox.com> <4151C278.7030701@poignantguide.net> Message-ID: <943D4540-0CC7-11D9-B705-000A95BC6C1A@mac.com> Hi, Many months ago, before my bosses started beating on me with sticks (note to bosses: I'm not complaining about the sticks...) I was looking at modifying redcloth to produce tex output. I got as far as producing headings and basic text. I stopped being productive around sidebars and pictures. The basics were there, but there was a lot of work left to be done. I think that using LaTeX is the "right" way to make a pdf. Maybe other simpler markup languages to make PDFs exist, but if I remember correctly the biggest roadblock was that redcloth is HTML-centric. -Chris On Sep 22, 2004, at 11:39 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2004, at 2:20 PM, why the lucky stiff wrote: > >> Does every example have to be practical? Can some be hypothetical? > > I suppose, so long as it's clear for the "dummies" when you're > presenting hypotheticals and when you're presenting working examples. > > I could imagine doing that either in the text, or perhaps as you > suggest, graphically. > > BTW, re: the PDF, I agree that'd be valuable. If you author this > using redcloth, perhaps there's an easy way to spit out LaTeX code > that can then be typeset with pdftex? > > Bruce > > _______________________________________________ > poignant-stiffs mailing list > poignant-stiffs@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/poignant-stiffs > From ryan.platte at gmail.com Wed Sep 22 14:55:42 2004 From: ryan.platte at gmail.com (Ryan Platte) Date: Wed Sep 22 14:55:48 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: References: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> <5304072E-0C9C-11D9-9C92-000A95B10832@myrealbox.com> <4151C278.7030701@poignantguide.net> Message-ID: <2f1a1dcb04092211553c6379f9@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:39:31 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > I suppose, so long as it's clear for the "dummies" when you're > presenting hypotheticals and when you're presenting working examples. > > I could imagine doing that either in the text, or perhaps as you > suggest, graphically. Thought balloons? Code rendered in handwriting? A mascot that appears for imaginary code? -- Ryan Platte From bdarcus at myrealbox.com Wed Sep 22 15:11:47 2004 From: bdarcus at myrealbox.com (Bruce D'Arcus) Date: Wed Sep 22 15:12:08 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: <943D4540-0CC7-11D9-B705-000A95BC6C1A@mac.com> References: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> <5304072E-0C9C-11D9-9C92-000A95B10832@myrealbox.com> <4151C278.7030701@poignantguide.net> <943D4540-0CC7-11D9-B705-000A95BC6C1A@mac.com> Message-ID: <3FB79B52-0CCB-11D9-A8E5-000A959F0E52@myrealbox.com> On Sep 22, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Chris Hoge wrote: > Many months ago, before my bosses started beating on me with sticks > (note to bosses: I'm not complaining about the sticks...) I was > looking at modifying redcloth to produce tex output. I got as far as > producing headings and basic text. I stopped being productive around > sidebars and pictures. The basics were there, but there was a lot of > work left to be done. I think that using LaTeX is the "right" way to > make a pdf. Maybe other simpler markup languages to make PDFs exist, > but if I remember correctly the biggest roadblock was that redcloth is > HTML-centric. If redcloth output clean semantic xhtml (with class attributes on everything not explicitly support in html, like footnotes), I could probably (if I find the time) write the xslt to get the latex code. Bruce From why at poignantguide.net Wed Sep 22 15:25:16 2004 From: why at poignantguide.net (why the lucky stiff) Date: Wed Sep 22 15:26:03 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: <3FB79B52-0CCB-11D9-A8E5-000A959F0E52@myrealbox.com> References: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> <5304072E-0C9C-11D9-9C92-000A95B10832@myrealbox.com> <4151C278.7030701@poignantguide.net> <943D4540-0CC7-11D9-B705-000A95BC6C1A@mac.com> <3FB79B52-0CCB-11D9-A8E5-000A959F0E52@myrealbox.com> Message-ID: <4151D19C.6020604@poignantguide.net> Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > On Sep 22, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Chris Hoge wrote: > >> Many months ago, before my bosses started beating on me with sticks >> (note to bosses: I'm not complaining about the sticks...) I was >> looking at modifying redcloth to produce tex output. I got as far as >> producing headings and basic text. I stopped being productive around >> sidebars and pictures. The basics were there, but there was a lot of >> work left to be done. I think that using LaTeX is the "right" way to >> make a pdf. Maybe other simpler markup languages to make PDFs exist, >> but if I remember correctly the biggest roadblock was that redcloth >> is HTML-centric. > > > If redcloth output clean semantic xhtml (with class attributes on > everything not explicitly support in html, like footnotes), I could > probably (if I find the time) write the xslt to get the latex code. I've got RedCloth outputting PDFs. Getting the sidebars to flow right is the tricky part. Everything else is sort of not hard. _why From why at poignantguide.net Wed Sep 22 15:28:18 2004 From: why at poignantguide.net (why the lucky stiff) Date: Wed Sep 22 15:28:45 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: <2f1a1dcb04092211553c6379f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> <5304072E-0C9C-11D9-9C92-000A95B10832@myrealbox.com> <4151C278.7030701@poignantguide.net> <2f1a1dcb04092211553c6379f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4151D252.3030204@poignantguide.net> Ryan Platte wrote: >On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:39:31 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > >>I suppose, so long as it's clear for the "dummies" when you're >>presenting hypotheticals and when you're presenting working examples. >> >>I could imagine doing that either in the text, or perhaps as you >>suggest, graphically. >> >> > >Thought balloons? Code rendered in handwriting? A mascot that appears >for imaginary code? > > > Frame all code in a collage of great moments from Remington Steele!! _why From bdarcus at myrealbox.com Wed Sep 22 15:49:51 2004 From: bdarcus at myrealbox.com (Bruce D'Arcus) Date: Wed Sep 22 15:50:01 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: <4151D19C.6020604@poignantguide.net> References: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> <5304072E-0C9C-11D9-9C92-000A95B10832@myrealbox.com> <4151C278.7030701@poignantguide.net> <943D4540-0CC7-11D9-B705-000A95BC6C1A@mac.com> <3FB79B52-0CCB-11D9-A8E5-000A959F0E52@myrealbox.com> <4151D19C.6020604@poignantguide.net> Message-ID: <915E2F6F-0CD0-11D9-A8E5-000A959F0E52@myrealbox.com> On Sep 22, 2004, at 3:25 PM, why the lucky stiff wrote: > I've got RedCloth outputting PDFs. How? Or, rather, in what form? TeX? Bruce From why at poignantguide.net Wed Sep 22 15:55:46 2004 From: why at poignantguide.net (why the lucky stiff) Date: Wed Sep 22 15:56:06 2004 Subject: ch. 5 and code examples In-Reply-To: <915E2F6F-0CD0-11D9-A8E5-000A959F0E52@myrealbox.com> References: <41517DB3.6090701@poignantguide.net> <5304072E-0C9C-11D9-9C92-000A95B10832@myrealbox.com> <4151C278.7030701@poignantguide.net> <943D4540-0CC7-11D9-B705-000A95BC6C1A@mac.com> <3FB79B52-0CCB-11D9-A8E5-000A959F0E52@myrealbox.com> <4151D19C.6020604@poignantguide.net> <915E2F6F-0CD0-11D9-A8E5-000A959F0E52@myrealbox.com> Message-ID: <4151D8C2.4030900@poignantguide.net> Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2004, at 3:25 PM, why the lucky stiff wrote: > >> I've got RedCloth outputting PDFs. > > > How? Or, rather, in what form? TeX? ClibPDF. _why From byates at emich.edu Wed Sep 22 17:55:53 2004 From: byates at emich.edu (Ben Yates) Date: Wed Sep 22 17:56:00 2004 Subject: imaginary code In-Reply-To: <200409221956.i8MJuJKd032330@rubyforge.org> References: <200409221956.i8MJuJKd032330@rubyforge.org> Message-ID: <4151F4E9.7060104@emich.edu> Perhaps the imaginary code could be written on a different type of cheese. From rob at tarasis.net Wed Sep 22 19:03:51 2004 From: rob at tarasis.net (Robert McGovern) Date: Wed Sep 22 19:03:54 2004 Subject: imaginary code In-Reply-To: <4151F4E9.7060104@emich.edu> References: <200409221956.i8MJuJKd032330@rubyforge.org> <4151F4E9.7060104@emich.edu> Message-ID: <1095894231.415204f7166da@tarasis.net> Quoting Ben Yates : || Perhaps the imaginary code could be written on a different type of cheese. i hear wendsleydale is popular ;-) _______________________________________________ || poignant-stiffs mailing list || poignant-stiffs@rubyforge.org || http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/poignant-stiffs || -- Personal responsibility is battling extinction. From olleolleolle at home.se Thu Sep 23 03:05:46 2004 From: olleolleolle at home.se (Olle Jonsson) Date: Thu Sep 23 03:05:54 2004 Subject: imaginary code In-Reply-To: <1095894231.415204f7166da@tarasis.net> References: <200409221956.i8MJuJKd032330@rubyforge.org> <4151F4E9.7060104@emich.edu> <1095894231.415204f7166da@tarasis.net> Message-ID: <415275CA.9060200@home.se> Robert McGovern: > i hear wendsleydale is popular ;-) Agreed. My take: yes to the imaginary code. And much of it. I more or less *read* the Poignant Guide, and after that, apply some of it in irb. So, to me, all the examples could be hypothetical. The ones that work in real life could be mascoted, cheesed, or Remington Steeled. kind regards, and humble thanks for this small avanlanche of Poignant Stiffness, Olle (Can't wait until the Guide gets to the meat of www applied ruby goodness.) From olleolleolle at home.se Fri Sep 24 09:33:37 2004 From: olleolleolle at home.se (Olle Jonsson) Date: Fri Sep 24 09:33:56 2004 Subject: Save Hannah! (Just praise here, go ahead, nothing to see) In-Reply-To: <415275CA.9060200@home.se> References: <200409221956.i8MJuJKd032330@rubyforge.org> <4151F4E9.7060104@emich.edu> <1095894231.415204f7166da@tarasis.net> <415275CA.9060200@home.se> Message-ID: <41542231.2050107@home.se> I was gripped by "Save Hannah"! > A method is its own island. And what goes on inside is unaffected > by the simple variables around it. Dr. Cham couldn?t breach the > illness of his niece, no more than an opus_magnum variable can > penetrate the steely exterior of a method. God, that is the FINEST description of scope. Steely exteriors. Ah, I read this like candy, one page a day. No more. Work first, then play, and maybe a page of Ruby goodness. PHP for bread, Ruby for culture. Peace of mind, and happy trails to all of you, Olle From rpardee at comcast.net Sat Sep 25 02:44:31 2004 From: rpardee at comcast.net (Roy Pardee (Poulsbo WA)) Date: Sat Sep 25 02:44:50 2004 Subject: Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby, Chapter Five: Them What Make the Rules and Them What Live the Dream In-Reply-To: <41506F58.2070904@poignantguide.net> Message-ID: <003c01c4a2cb$210cbc00$6401a8c0@blackula> Very cool stuff--thanks tons for this. FWIW--I don't know if it's b/c there was an unnaturally long period of time between reading ch1-4 and ch5, but I was a tad bewildered in a couple of spots: The :: syntax in the first snippet in section 2 (Endertromb::make( wish )) is not familiar--you're calling a wish method on the Endertromb class, right? Not sure why it's not just Endertromb.make(). Later on you show the same syntax as a method for interrogating classes for their members--maybe :: is a reflection thing? Please ignore if you've actually explained this & I was just inattentive. In the section headed "The mechanisms of name-calling", where you add some stuff to the string class you refer to @@syllables as an array--but isn't that a hash? Wait--now I see--it's an array of two hashes. I didn't catch that the first time around. I took it on faith that the shift method translated an index into a value, but would have loved a discussion of shift. Also, reading off paper away from my computer, I *really* could have used a "puts catsandtips" w/results shown after the code snippet demonstrating Array.collect. After playing w/it & rereading the description it makes perfect sense, but at the time it was kind of a whaaa? moment. Again, thanks for this wonderful book--I'm eagerly anticipating the next chapter! Peace, -Roy -----Original Message----- From: poignant-stiffs-bounces@rubyforge.org [mailto:poignant-stiffs-bounces@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of why the lucky stiff Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:14 AM To: poignant-stiffs@rubyforge.org; poignant-watchers@rubyforge.org Subject: Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby, Chapter Five: Them What Make the Rules and Them What Live the Dream Beloved friends and key witnesses: Holy highkick! I (at last) present chapter five! Fifty-two pages of spooky new adventures in Ruby. This is a big one for me: the book is now halfway. And I guarantee to you that -- should you read -- you will be in a new place, wading in the schemings of pygmy elephants and deer with powdered wigs. Travel now and read: http://poignantguide.net/ruby/ What is the (Poignant) Guide? I am here to tell you that it is a very obscure book, a minor ripple in the orchestrations of mankind, a scattered amalgamation of inky blotches and ridiculous code fragments -- at best -- a transcription of animal software from the original woodblock prints. And I haven't meant to corrupt the text with my snivelling biographies, but it has happened already, what can be done? A printable HTML version is available as well. You'll find a link to it and instructions for printing in Firefox at the Guide's site. Be aware, it's large as a squirrel heaven. Let it load, let it. Well, cheerio. Thankyou to Matz for his excellent resource "Ruby in a Nutshell". It's the employee handbook here at the plant. _why _______________________________________________ poignant-stiffs mailing list poignant-stiffs@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/poignant-stiffs From gsinclair at soyabean.com.au Sat Sep 25 10:09:46 2004 From: gsinclair at soyabean.com.au (Gavin Sinclair) Date: Sat Sep 25 10:11:13 2004 Subject: Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby, Chapter Five: Them What Make the Rules and Them What Live the Dream In-Reply-To: <003c01c4a2cb$210cbc00$6401a8c0@blackula> References: <41506F58.2070904@poignantguide.net> <003c01c4a2cb$210cbc00$6401a8c0@blackula> Message-ID: <1951527271690.20040926000946@soyabean.com.au> On Saturday, September 25, 2004, 4:44:31 PM, Roy wrote: > The :: syntax in the first snippet in section 2 (Endertromb::make( wish )) > is not familiar--you're calling a wish method on the Endertromb class, > right? Not sure why it's not just Endertromb.make(). Later on you show the > same syntax as a method for interrogating classes for their members--maybe > :: is a reflection thing? Please ignore if you've actually explained this & > I was just inattentive. I consider it very bad style to do Class::method when Class.method works and is consistent with object.method (since a class is an object, so doesn't need special syntax). :: should be reserved for accessing constants. Just reinforcing your point. Cheers, Gavin From why at poignantguide.net Mon Sep 27 17:04:41 2004 From: why at poignantguide.net (why the lucky stiff) Date: Mon Sep 27 17:05:19 2004 Subject: Class method syntax In-Reply-To: <1951527271690.20040926000946@soyabean.com.au> References: <41506F58.2070904@poignantguide.net> <003c01c4a2cb$210cbc00$6401a8c0@blackula> <1951527271690.20040926000946@soyabean.com.au> Message-ID: <41588069.8070806@poignantguide.net> Gavin Sinclair wrote: >On Saturday, September 25, 2004, 4:44:31 PM, Roy wrote: > > > >>The :: syntax in the first snippet in section 2 (Endertromb::make( wish )) >>is not familiar--you're calling a wish method on the Endertromb class, >>right? Not sure why it's not just Endertromb.make(). Later on you show the >>same syntax as a method for interrogating classes for their members--maybe >>:: is a reflection thing? Please ignore if you've actually explained this & >>I was just inattentive. >> >> > > >I consider it very bad style to do > > Class::method > >when > > Class.method > >works and is consistent with > > object.method > >(since a class is an object, so doesn't need special syntax). > > Well, this is arbitrary to me. I like using the double-colon syntax because it's unambiguous. What is IO.read? Are you refering to IO::read or IO#read? Could make it easier to naturally use Ri. I'd rather teach the syntax which errs on the side of clarity. But maybe it's easier for people to just learn the period and see `::` and `#` as notations for the docs. I think I just need to rework these two examples which open Dr. Cham's exploration of the castle. They seem to be confusing to enough people that it's probably best to try something new. _why From gsinclair at soyabean.com.au Mon Sep 27 19:33:41 2004 From: gsinclair at soyabean.com.au (Gavin Sinclair) Date: Mon Sep 27 19:35:50 2004 Subject: Class method syntax In-Reply-To: <41588069.8070806@poignantguide.net> References: <41506F58.2070904@poignantguide.net> <003c01c4a2cb$210cbc00$6401a8c0@blackula> <1951527271690.20040926000946@soyabean.com.au> <41588069.8070806@poignantguide.net> Message-ID: <1561733906665.20040928093341@soyabean.com.au> On Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 7:04:41 AM, why wrote: >> >>I consider it very bad style to do >> >> Class::method >> >>when >> >> Class.method >> >>works and is consistent with >> >> object.method >> >>(since a class is an object, so doesn't need special syntax). >> >> > Well, this is arbitrary to me. I like using the double-colon syntax > because it's unambiguous. What is IO.read? Are you refering to > IO::read or IO#read? I'm referring to IO.read, of course! That is, sending the message 'read' to the object IO. Of the two choices above, that corresponds to IO::read. IO#read actually evaluates to IO. :) > Could make it easier to naturally use Ri. I'd rather teach the > syntax which errs on the side of clarity. But maybe it's easier for > people to just learn the period and see `::` and `#` as notations > for the docs. The second one most definitely _is_ notation for the docs. We get questions every now and then about it. You're right that 'ri' is ambiguous, and that '.' can mean '::' or '#' (an arbitrary construct) depending on context. Users should be made aware of that. Gavin