search for: vehiclemaker

Hi, I''ve been tinkering a bit with Ruby lately, and is truly amazed by its automation, however some of it is a bit arcane for a newbie to understand :| Let''s say for instance I have a object Person which has_many VehicleRegistrations, and I want to have a form that would enable me to instantiate many VehicleRegistrations at once. So supposing my form enables 2

Hi I have been following a thread here.. http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/new?forum_id=3 but it did raise some new curiosities that I hope someone can help address here :) In particular it is with Duane''s super secret hack that works for multiple child objects > There''s a super-secret and mostly undocumented way of doing this > that''s kind of handy, actually.

I''m trying to figure out how to turn a string into an object. Can anyone point me? Here''s some background. Here''s the part of what I''m trying to do that works. ------------------------------------- @ford = [''mustang'', ''pinto''] make = ''@ford'' puts eval(make) --> produces mustang pinto

...ere you want something descriptive. > > For example, naming a variable i here is perfectly fine: > > for (unsigned i = 0; i != 100; ++i) >  A[i] = 0; > > Naming it "ArrayIndex" would not make it more clear :) Good point. I actually have this in the example: 828 VehicleMaker m; // Bad (abbreviation and non-descriptive); might be 829 // OK for a local variable if its role is obvious. I'll reword the rule to match what you have in mind. > For capitalization, I generally prefer capital names with the exception being one character names that...

...>> For example, naming a variable i here is perfectly fine: >> >> for (unsigned i = 0; i != 100; ++i) >>  A[i] = 0; >> >> Naming it "ArrayIndex" would not make it more clear :) > > Good point.  I actually have this in the example: > >  828   VehicleMaker m;  // Bad (abbreviation and non-descriptive); might be >  829                    // OK for a local variable if its role is obvious. > > I'll reword the rule to match what you have in mind. I've made the change and uploaded the new patch to http://codereview.appspot.com/3264041 --...

...e is perfectly fine: > >> > >> for (unsigned i = 0; i != 100; ++i) > >> A[i] = 0; > >> > >> Naming it "ArrayIndex" would not make it more clear :) > > > > Good point. I actually have this in the example: > > > > 828 VehicleMaker m; // Bad (abbreviation and non-descriptive); might > be > > 829 // OK for a local variable if its role is > obvious. > > > > I'll reword the rule to match what you have in mind. > > I've made the change and uploaded the new patch to > h...