[#1110] alias — ts <decoux@...>
6 messages
2003/06/01
[#1122] Exception::new — ts <decoux@...>
6 messages
2003/06/05
[#1140] Rubicon questions — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
6 messages
2003/06/14
[#1147] Copying RVALUE — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>
Hello, everyone. Hope you are all doing well.
18 messages
2003/06/17
[#1155] Re: Copying RVALUE
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2003/06/20
Hi,
[#1157] Re: Copying RVALUE
— why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>
2003/06/20
Yukihiro Matsumoto (matz@ruby-lang.org) wrote:
[#1160] Re: Copying RVALUE
— Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
2003/06/20
In article <20030620153706.GA65136@rysa.inetz.com>,
[#1161] Re: Copying RVALUE
— why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>
2003/06/20
Tanaka Akira (akr@m17n.org) wrote:
[#1162] Re: Copying RVALUE
— Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
2003/06/20
[#1163] Re: Copying RVALUE
— Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
2003/06/21
[#1148] 'unexpected break' when captured block calls break — george.marrows@...
Proc-closures capture any block passed to their enclosing scope: the script
4 messages
2003/06/18
[#1173] class.c code cleanup (rb_class_*_instance_methods) — Matthew Dempsky <jivera@...>
Hi, I'm new to this mailing list so I don't know the procedure for
15 messages
2003/06/22
[#1174] Re: [Patch] class.c code cleanup (rb_class_*_instance_methods)
— nobu.nokada@...
2003/06/22
Hi,
[#1175] Re: [Patch] class.c code cleanup (rb_class_*_instance_methods)
— Matthew Dempsky <jivera@...>
2003/06/22
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 05:36, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
[#1176] Re: [Patch] class.c code cleanup (rb_class_*_instance_methods)
— nobu.nokada@...
2003/06/22
Hi,
[#1193] Re: [Patch] class.c code cleanup (rb_class_*_instance_methods)
— Matthew Dempsky <jivera@...>
2003/06/25
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 07:41, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
[#1194] Re: [Patch] class.c code cleanup (rb_class_*_instance_methods)
— nobu.nokada@...
2003/06/25
Hi,
[#1196] Re: [Patch] class.c code cleanup (rb_class_*_instance_methods)
— Matthew Dempsky <jivera@...>
2003/06/25
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 02:01, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
[#1197] Re: [Patch] class.c code cleanup (rb_class_*_instance_methods)
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2003/06/25
Hi,
[#1198] Re: [Patch] class.c code cleanup (rb_class_*_instance_methods)
— nobu.nokada@...
2003/06/25
Hi,
[#1177] Re: In 1.8.0 nil.to_s is not the same as "" — ts <decoux@...>
14 messages
2003/06/22
[#1178] Re: In 1.8.0 nil.to_s is not the same as ""
— nobu.nokada@...
2003/06/22
Hi,
[#1179] Re: In 1.8.0 nil.to_s is not the same as ""
— ts <decoux@...>
2003/06/22
>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:
Re: Rubicon questions
From:
Chad Fowler <chadfowler@...>
Date:
2003-06-14 17:05:31 UTC
List:
ruby-core #1141
Here's my attempt at an answer:
- Is the latest CVS-versions of Rubicon and Ruby supposed to "agree" ?
( ie. give no errors )
----Ideally, but it doesn't. It needs work. There are many incompatibilities introduced in the 1.8 Ruby work which still need to be fitted into Rubicon
-Are the Rubicon tests supposed to "agree" with old versions of Ruby in this way? If so, how many old versions and which versions ?
----Yes. The Version.greater_or_equal type stuff was added primarily for Ruby 1.7.x. I don't know of any plans to try to go back to pre-1.6. Ideally, this functionality should be used minimally, but that all depends on which direction Ruby itself goes in terms of compatibility.
I'm sure that any help on Rubicon would be welcome, but it's Dave's baby (he's out of town, I believe).
Have you seen triple-r?
http://www.rubygarden.org/triple-r/index.html
Chad
Johan Holmberg wrote:
>Hi !
>
>I just tried to run Rubicon on the latest version of Ruby
>(from CVS). There were several errors, for example some when testing
>'Array'.
>
>I would like to know some more about how Rubicon is handled:
>
>- Is the latest CVS-versions of Rubicon and Ruby supposed to "agree" ?
> ( ie. give no errors )
>
>- I have seen that Rubicon tests distinguish between different
> versions of Ruby (eg. "Version.greater_or_equal("1.7.2") do" ...)
>
> Are the Rubicon tests supposed to "agree" with old versions of
> Ruby in this way ?
> If so, how many old versions and which versions ?
>
>
>I ask because I'm considering trying to help write more testcases,
>but feel I need to know more about the "life of Rubicon" before I
>start (I have read the README file, and looked around in some of the
>tests).
>
>/Johan Holmberg
>
>
>