[#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

22 messages 2003/07/01
[#1208] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/01

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1209] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/02

ts wrote:

[#1210] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/02

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1211] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1212] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/04

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1213] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1214] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/04

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1215] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1237] FTP.new with block — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

Hi,

22 messages 2003/07/19
[#1238] Re: [Patch] FTP.new with block — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/19

>>>>> "G" == Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:

[#1240] Re: [Patch] FTP.new with block — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/07/19

[#1297] Fix for Bug 1058 — Markus Walser <walser@...>

Hi,

16 messages 2003/07/25

Re: [Patch] FTP.new with block

From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2003-07-19 22:04:35 UTC
List: ruby-core #1247
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> 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.

... but the logic is pretty dodgy.

Especially as almost all programming languages I know consider "open"
separate from "close". Can you name a few exceptions?

In addition, Ruby's File.open is already being used by countless
programmers all around the world since a few years. I don't think such a
modification is warranted. OTOH, given the float literal syntax has
changed recently, among other things, I don't think it would further
damage Ruby's reputation to also change File.open in the way you
describe.

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju


In This Thread