Comments on: More Ruby Type Weirdness http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/more-ruby-type-weirdness/ programming, politics, & other religious issues Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:16:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ruby is the Future http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/more-ruby-type-weirdness/#comment-37193 Ruby is the Future Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:25:55 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/more-ruby-type-weirdness/#comment-37193 [...] a whole lifetime of ranting against it (cite, cite, cite, cite), I finally have to eat my words, come out, and say it: Ruby is the language of the [...] [...] a whole lifetime of ranting against it (cite, cite, cite, cite), I finally have to eat my words, come out, and say it: Ruby is the language of the [...]

]]> By: Andre http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/more-ruby-type-weirdness/#comment-34254 Andre Fri, 06 Mar 2009 01:40:30 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/more-ruby-type-weirdness/#comment-34254 Can you give a bit more context? This is certainly an Active Record issue, not a Ruby issue, but even then it seems that, if I understood the problem correctly, you could add validations to your model to avoid that error. Can you give a bit more context? This is certainly an Active Record issue, not a Ruby issue, but even then it seems that, if I understood the problem correctly, you could add validations to your model to avoid that error.

]]> By: Beau http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/more-ruby-type-weirdness/#comment-34253 Beau Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:04:44 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/more-ruby-type-weirdness/#comment-34253 irb(main):001:0> int_var = 0 => 0 irb(main):002:0> int_var = ['value'].shift => "value" irb(main):003:0> puts int_var value => nil Agree with Barry Kelly, this looks like ActiveRecord weirdness. irb(main):001:0> int_var = 0
=> 0
irb(main):002:0> int_var = ['value'].shift
=> “value”
irb(main):003:0> puts int_var
value
=> nil

Agree with Barry Kelly, this looks like ActiveRecord weirdness.

]]> By: Barry Kelly http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/more-ruby-type-weirdness/#comment-34251 Barry Kelly Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:29:01 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/more-ruby-type-weirdness/#comment-34251 Ruby doesn't sit on the fence, AFAIK, at least not like Variants in e.g. VB do: the values are indeed typed. It seems to me that however ActiveRecord works, it should have interpreted the message to assign a string to the step field as a runtime error, or it should have stored it as a string and produced a runtime error later when trying to persist it. In other words, it looks more like a library problem - the library trying to do coercion - than a language problem. I may, of course, have misinterpreted the situation, given that I have done extremely little Ruby programming. Ruby doesn’t sit on the fence, AFAIK, at least not like Variants in e.g. VB do: the values are indeed typed. It seems to me that however ActiveRecord works, it should have interpreted the message to assign a string to the step field as a runtime error, or it should have stored it as a string and produced a runtime error later when trying to persist it.

In other words, it looks more like a library problem – the library trying to do coercion – than a language problem.

I may, of course, have misinterpreted the situation, given that I have done extremely little Ruby programming.

]]> By: Mike http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/more-ruby-type-weirdness/#comment-34250 Mike Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:26:12 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/more-ruby-type-weirdness/#comment-34250 A decent suite of tests would have warned you when you changed 'step' from string to integer. No need to start locking everything down just to highlight the bugs in your code. A decent suite of tests would have warned you when you changed ‘step’ from string to integer. No need to start locking everything down just to highlight the bugs in your code.

]]>