CORE - Altering Behaviour of "each do" (default param "item")

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Ilias Lazaridis, Jun 4, 2011.

  1. I am free to use this resource to post topics subjecting the ruby

    You are *not* free to bombard those topics with off-topic comments.

    You *are* free to setup a filter, thus you don't see my messages/
    topics anymore.

    It's as easy as that.

    And please: refrain from further off-topic messages.

    It's really enough.

    Ilias Lazaridis, Jun 5, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ilias Lazaridis

    Josh Cheek Guest

    [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    Curious, based on your questions it looks like you chose some other
    Josh Cheek, Jun 5, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. It depends solely on what you define »the topic«. You seem to have talent in making yourself the topic and not taking notice of that. That’s your
    fault, not the other’s. So if you want to avoid being called rude, just _try_ to keep your wording easy and indicate thankfulness. (There is a
    well-meant advice in it and I expect thankfulness for that as well).
    So are you.
    Matthias Wächter, Jun 5, 2011
  4. [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    Let's just ignore him, shall we?
    He already abused our time, patience and kindness. Let's follow JEG's advice.

    Michaël Sokol
    Michael Sokol, Jun 5, 2011
  5. Actually, this assessment is wrong.

    Robert Klemme, Jun 5, 2011
  6. [...] - (twisted views of in-topic and forced thankfulness)
    I can filter you.

    But your off-topic-babbling is archived.

    Ilias Lazaridis, Jun 5, 2011
  7. [...]

    Note to readers:

    This approach is not usable in the given context (Altering Behaviours
    of "each do").

    The code can *possibly* altered, thus it works on Array#each.

    For a solution which works exactly in the given context (Array#each),
    see message from "James Gray" below (you can ignore all following
    messages, they are off-topic).

    Ilias Lazaridis, Jun 5, 2011
  8. Off the topic of what, exactly?

    This is the most popular mailing-list and deals with general topics about
    Ruby. Ruby-Talk is mirrored by the comp.lang.ruby newsgroup and Ruby-"

    "Examples of relevant postings include, but are not limited
    to, the following subjects:

    - Bug reports
    - Announcements of software written with Ruby
    - Examples of Ruby code
    - Suggestions for Ruby developers
    - Requests for help from new Ruby programmers"

    When people offer you a suggestion, Ilias, that's not offtopic. It's exactly
    the opposite of offtopic -- "Suggestions for Ruby developers" is in the
    official comp.lang.ruby charter as a relevant topic.
    David Masover, Jun 6, 2011
  9. Probably this page:

    It doesn't seem that "violation" was the primary concern, so much as that
    there wasn't enough reliable information to back it up. If that wasn't the
    case, I have to imagine that "notability" would've kicked in.
    Legal threats again? Is this the only way you can get anyone to take you

    Alright, I'll use your source this time:
    "Defamation is false and unprivileged spoken words or written publication,
    which exposes any living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or which causes
    him/her to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him/her in
    his/her trade or occupation."

    So, for you to show that this has occurred, you need to demonstrate that not
    only are these things false, but that they actually cause you to be shunned,
    avoided, hated, ridiculed, etc. I don't think anything anyone else has said
    about you so far has done more damage to your reputation than you have,
    yourself, in very nearly every exchange.

    In particular:

    "a false statement of fact;
    that is understood as
    being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
    tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff."

    Is anyone here making any false statements of _fact_ about you?

    Now, let's look at possible defenses, if you actually sued one of us:

    "What defenses may be available to someone who is sued for defamation?
    There are ordinarily 6 possible defenses available to a defendant who is sued
    for libel (published defamatory communication.)
    1. Truth. This is a complete defense, but may be difficult to prove."

    While it may be difficult to show that you're a troll, many of the other
    statements about you should be relatively easy to prove, especially when
    everything you say has been archived.

    " 2. Fair comment on a matter of public interest. This defense applies to
    "opinion" only, as compared to a statement of fact. The defendant usually
    needs to prove that the opinion is honestly held and the comments were not
    motivated by actual "malice." (Malice means knowledge of falsity or reckless
    disregard for the truth of falsity of the defamatory statement.)"

    Most of the statements which seem to bother you so much are also statements of
    opinion -- for instance, "It's not worth our time to respond to Ilias

    " 6. Plaintiff's poor reputation. Defendant can mitigate (lessen) damages for
    a defamatory statement by proving that the plaintiff did not have a good
    reputation to begin with. Defendant ordinarily can prove plaintiff's poor
    reputation by calling witnesses with knowledge of the plaintiff's prior
    reputation relating to the defamatory content."

    And there are all kinds of witnesses here.

    Please do.

    If you do end up suing for defamation, while it's going to suck for whoever
    ends up defending, it's also likely to make your reputation that much worse,
    and more widespread. It would be incredibly self-defeating, and all kinds of
    fun to watch.

    If you instead react by trying to learn why it is that you're getting these
    comments -- you could start by actually reading them, instead of writing them
    off as "off-topic" or "personal" -- then your reputation would likely improve
    dramatically, as would your productivity and your contributions to the
    community. People would _want_ to help you, instead of wanting you to go away.
    It's clear that you've already either filtered me or chosen to ignore
    everything I have to say. Ah, well. Hopefully this exchange is useful to
    someone else, and it will satisfy my curiosity as to whether there's anyone
    who actually agrees you here.
    Gladly, on the condition that you will do the same. That means being willing
    to discuss some context, what problem you're actually trying to solve, and
    where your "requirements" are coming from.
    David Masover, Jun 6, 2011
    Robert Klemme, Jun 6, 2011
  11. You like quoting.

    Still, your message is 100% off-topic.

    But I'll back off, before people start to suggest cook-recipes or new
    techniques of how to go pee.

    Really unbelievable all this.

    Ilias Lazaridis, Jun 6, 2011
  12. I don't have to "look close enough"

    This was the original context (specification):

    names = ["Jane", "Michele", "Isabella"]
    # current behaviour
    names.each do |name|
    print name
    #Question: How can I alter the behaviour of "each" in the following
    names.each do
    print item # "item" is used by default

    The specification is very simple.

    Your solution does not work in this context.

    The solution from Gray works 100%.

    If you like, you can still modify your solution to pass the

    If not, feel free to setup a new context (specification), but please
    use a new topic.

    Ilias Lazaridis, Jun 6, 2011
  13. That speaks for itself.
    Well, yes and no. From what I read I'd say you are not aware of all the
    consequences. The reason is probably that you do not look closer. It's
    your choice of course but it makes me feel uncomfortable to see people
    running away with solutions which they do not seem to understand.
    Usually this causes some smaller or larger disaster later on.

    Over and out.

    Robert Klemme, Jun 6, 2011
  14. I don't have to "look close enough" (only in the given context that
    I've choose to set)
    I understand perfectly (in the given context that I've choose to set)

    In a production app, I would set a complete different context.
    Hope this is a promise.

    Cu in another thread (hopefully less verbose and more in context)

    Ilias Lazaridis, Jun 6, 2011
  15. I'm looking for a recipe for "slow roasted Lizard"

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ilias Lazaridis [mailto:]=20
    Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 3:11 AM
    To: ruby-talk ML
    Subject: Re: CORE - Altering Behaviour of "each do" (default param =

    You like quoting.

    Still, your message is 100% off-topic.

    But I'll back off, before people start to suggest cook-recipes or new
    techniques of how to go pee.

    Really unbelievable all this.
    Leigh McGaughy, Jun 6, 2011
  16. " The article is one of these "I want to attack the guy without
    crossing the Wikipedia blatant personnal attack line" "
    There is no threat, you just interpret one.
    [...] - aborted reading, due to time constraints.

    I don't care if you (or people of your kind) take me serious.

    Simply because I don't take you serious.

    Within open discussion groups, I respect and take serious (on a
    professional level) only those who stay in-topic and in-context. Those
    who *not* bombard me with tons of irrelevant details, just to cover
    their own inablitiy or ignorance, or simply just to have to say
    something in a lonely evening.

    I respect people which have the discipline to stay unbiased, even if
    they have possible negative personal feelings against me (e.g. because
    the dislike mey *personal* writing style, which is part of my

    I respect people which understand that there is a difference between
    "analytic ability" and "knowledge", and that knowledge can many times
    reduce the analytic ability, thus it must be assimilated with care.

    I respect them and take them serious, because those are the people
    which can evolve a system (like a programming language) in an
    efficient way.



    Stay in-topic and in-context - or stay out of the topics.

    You owe this not only to me, but to every current and future reader of
    the archives.


    If you have an unresistable need to express yourself, simply open a
    new topic with an "[OT]" (off-topic) marker, e.g.:

    [OT] The unbelieavable attitude of Mr. Ilias Lazaridis

    and write whatever you like. It's far more professional than to
    destroy a clearly technical thread with 80% irrelevant content.

    Ilias Lazaridis, Jun 7, 2011
    David Masover, Jun 7, 2011
  18. [...]

    This was the initial deletion reason (and the reality).

    aborted reading (It's just too much babbling).

    Have fun!

    Ilias Lazaridis, Jun 7, 2011
    David Masover, Jun 8, 2011
  20. [...] - (excellent analysis which quotes some anonymous comments and a
    fascinating analogy to Paris Hilton)

    Now I see!

    I accept what is proofed without doubt:

    The article (written mostly by one person and a 2nd one which added
    some spices, both from the python domain) was *not* deleted because it
    was crossing the "personal attack line" of wikipedia (= writing
    nonsense about a person on a personal/professional level, without any

    The article was deleted, because of the "notability" (= my person is
    not notable enough to get an wikipedia article).


    And then one wonders why I neither respect you (people) nor take you

    See, I don't care if I'm notable or not.

    I'll just repeat what I've said earlier, as this is the main essence:

    "If you (people) continue to attack me on a *professional* level,
    have to react at some point."

    Ilias Lazaridis, Jun 8, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.