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


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Creating Output Tables

Ari Brown

7/15/2007 11:05:00 PM

HAI,
Is there a suggested library for creating nice tabley outputs? I was
looking for output much in the way that benchmark has its output.

asdf 12321 asdf
asdf 12312 qemp[g
qlfckjsd 987234 asdf

etcetera.


KTHXBAI,
Ari
-------------------------------------------|
Nietzsche is my copilot
5 Answers

hemant

7/15/2007 11:15:00 PM

0

On 7/16/07, Ari Brown <ari@aribrown.com> wrote:
> HAI,
> Is there a suggested library for creating nice tabley outputs? I was
> looking for output much in the way that benchmark has its output.
>
> asdf 12321 asdf
> asdf 12312 qemp[g
> qlfckjsd 987234 asdf
>
> etcetera.
>

May be ruport, but i think you already know about it.

Michael Fellinger

7/16/2007 12:11:00 AM

0

On 7/16/07, Ari Brown <ari@aribrown.com> wrote:
> HAI,
> Is there a suggested library for creating nice tabley outputs? I was
> looking for output much in the way that benchmark has its output.
>
> asdf 12321 asdf
> asdf 12312 qemp[g
> qlfckjsd 987234 asdf
>
> etcetera.

require 'ruport'

table = [
%w[asdf 12344 asdf],
%w[asdf 12342 qwer(d],
%w[zxcvdfg 23521 vbcbd]
].to_table

puts table.to_text # =>

+--------------------------+
| asdf | 12344 | asdf |
| asdf | 12342 | qwer(d |
| zxcvdfg | 23521 | vbcbd |
+--------------------------+

Ari Brown

7/16/2007 12:14:00 AM

0

Thanks!


On Jul 15, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Michael Fellinger wrote:

> On 7/16/07, Ari Brown <ari@aribrown.com> wrote:
>> HAI,
>> Is there a suggested library for creating nice tabley
>> outputs? I was
>> looking for output much in the way that benchmark has its output.
>>
>> asdf 12321 asdf
>> asdf 12312 qemp[g
>> qlfckjsd 987234 asdf
>>
>> etcetera.
>
> require 'ruport'
>
> table = [
> %w[asdf 12344 asdf],
> %w[asdf 12342 qwer(d],
> %w[zxcvdfg 23521 vbcbd]
> ].to_table
>
> puts table.to_text # =>
>
> +--------------------------+
> | asdf | 12344 | asdf |
> | asdf | 12342 | qwer(d |
> | zxcvdfg | 23521 | vbcbd |
> +--------------------------+
>
>

--------------------------------------------|
If you're not living on the edge,
then you're just wasting space.

Thanatos

9/4/2012 10:05:00 PM

0

In article <k25t0r$lgq$1@panix2.panix.com>,
wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

> In article <322v38t75f1eeqhddg62sqaoo0c5vi7mi0@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> said:
>
> > William December Starr sent the following
> >> Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> said:
> >>
> >>> What's interesting is that I was challenged earlier on when I
> >>> pointed out that there is a subset of gays and gay supporters who
> >>> won't be happy with equal legal rights unless those rights are
> >>> accompanied by the "right" to use the terms "marry" and "marriage"
> >>> in their situations. And some people here didn't believe me. But
> >>> here we are with people proving my point by taking that very stand
> >>> *themselves*, right here on this group.
> >>
> >> You were challenged on that (aside from people taking issue with
> >> the sneer quotes around "right")?
> >
> > I put quotes around it because it's not a "right" in the sense
> > that those who call it one wish/believe it to be.
>
> Looks like one to me. Why should one category of pairs of people
> get the legal right to enter into a state-recognized state of
> marriage and another category of them only get the legal right to
> enter into a state of civil union, when the only difference between
> the two categories is whether the people have identical or opposite
> genital plumbing?

Why should it only be pairs of people who share that right?

Thanatos

9/5/2012 12:43:00 AM

0

In article <k262s9$bsk$1@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obveeus@aol.com>
wrote:

> "Mason Barge" <masonbarge@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:10 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Looks like one to me. Why should one category of pairs of people
> >>> get the legal right to enter into a state-recognized state of
> >>> marriage and another category of them only get the legal right to
> >>> enter into a state of civil union, when the only difference between
> >>> the two categories is whether the people have identical or opposite
> >>> genital plumbing?
> >>
> >>Why should it only be pairs of people who share that right?
>
> There are financial complications when the union involves more than two
> people.

So what?

Why are people's financial problems the government's business to solve?
If three people find their love to be important enough to take on some
complications, that's their business.

If you're saying it's complicated from the government's side, since when
do we limit a right as fundamental as marriage based on how convenient
it is for a government bureaucrat to deal with its exercise?