[#1207] warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...>
This message was posted to ruby-talk, but I didn't get responce from
>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:
ts wrote:
>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:
ts wrote:
>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:
ts wrote:
>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:
ts wrote:
>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:
Hi,
[#1229] stack problem — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:59:53PM +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 01:26:43AM +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Hi,
[#1237] FTP.new with block — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Hi,
>>>>> "G" == Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:
Hi,
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:06:13AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
>>>>> "R" == Richard Zidlicky <rz@linux-m68k.org> writes:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 06:51:03PM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "R" == Richard Zidlicky <rz@linux-m68k.org> writes:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:59:19PM +0900, ts wrote:
[#1249] File.write(path, data)? — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
I am glad to see File.read(path) in Ruby 1.8. But what about
[#1256] testunit, exit status and at_exit — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I'd really like TestUnit to be able to return an exit status when I run
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Sean E. Russell [mailto:ser@germane-software.com] wrote:
Hi,
[#1257] Add have_defined() and rework have_struct_member() — Michal Rokos <m.rokos@...>
Hello,
[#1297] Fix for Bug 1058 — Markus Walser <walser@...>
Hi,
Hi,
On Friday 25 July 2003 10:58, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 25 July 2003 11:46, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
I tried to figure out what's wrong. So far I havn't a solution:
Hello,
> Check the value of klass by
Hi,
[#1309] exceptions and such — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
[#1310] adding NodeDump and ii — nobu.nokada@...
Hi,
>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:
Re: [Patch] FTP.new with block
On Sunday, July 20, 2003, 4:11:32 AM, Dave wrote: > Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: >> But "open" returns the last value evaluated in the block, for >> convenience, whereas "new", as I believe, should always return a new >> instance. For me, this is more important than your reason. > Perhaps this time you should invoke the principle of least confusion... > (although I can see the argument both ways) > If you allowed passing a block to .new, then it would be meaningless to > return a file object, so your choices would be either nil or the block > value. If you made it the block value, then folks wouldn't have to > remember the difference between open and new. > There are many other methods whose return value varies if a block is > given, so there are precedents. My suggestion is: - disallow block for File.new (i.e. no change) - enforce block for File.open (because open implies close) X.new should always return "instance of X". There's no need to force File.new and File.open to mean the same thing. I realise the "open implies close" logic is pretty dodgy, but it's such a nifty language feature. Gavin