[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: possible to un-warn?

Gennady Bystritsky

1/14/2007 6:14:00 PM

David Chelimsky wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working on implementing expectation matchers in rspec, so
> instead of this:
>
> cat.should_eat "tuna"
>
> you would write this:
>
> cat.should eat "tuna"
>
> Now the rub is that this generates "warning: parenthesize argument(s)
> for future version". The thing is that, in this case, we know with
> some certainty that everything after "eat" is an argument to "eat",
> and that the result of "eat" is an argument to "should".

It used not to warn in Ruby 1.6.4, by the way. I also experienced the
same problem when moving to Ruby 1.8.2 in my package manager facility
(http://sf.net/projec...) that I am going to release soon (after
almost 3 years of active development and use in a number of commercial
projects). I have a Ruby-based DSL there for package description, that
used to have statements like these:

generate as 'bin/act', source program "project/act.rb"
install into 'lib/test/accept', source ruby 'project' =>
'test/accept/action.rb'

I had to change it to:

generate.as('bin/act').source.program "project/act.rb"
install.into('lib/test/accept').source.ruby 'project' =>
'test/accept/action.rb'

And I like the resulting syntax so much better :-)

Gennady Bystritsky.
1 Answer

Neolibertarian

1/8/2012 3:19:00 AM

0

In article <voudnSYaXKlFMZXSnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@mchsi.com>,
Bible Studies with Satan <bible@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Captain Compassion wrote:
>
> > Bj?rn Lomborg
> http://www.lomborg-...

I just spent too long going through this website, attempting to find an
example of the factual errors Lomborg committed.

There aren't many listed. Just general accusations. Non-specified lists.
Vague accusations.

Finally, in the sections titled "Lomborg's reaction to Lomberg-errors" I
came across a single actual factual error, specifically discussed.

It seems he claims that only 20% of original global forest area has been
cleared. World Resources Institute and the UN's Food and Agriculture
Organization figures place it at about 50%. Lomberg claims they place it
at 67%, and that their figures are exaggerated and inaccurate.

Maybe I don't have enough patience. But this is all I could find after
digging into the site.

All other supposed errors seems to be very vague, and highly generalized.

One would think if these errors were so copious and egregious, the
author of the site would have included a few more, and put them front
and center in all the specificity possible.

Just sayin'...

--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."