[#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 Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:06:13AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
> Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, ts wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>"G" == Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:
> >>
> >>G> FTP.new and FTP.open are like their File counterparts: they accept a
> >>G> block, pass in the ftp object, and ensure the FTP connection is closed
> >>G> at the end of (or premature exit from) the block.
> >>Why all persons think that File::new can take a block ?
> >
> >
> >That's psychological: when people have a lot of things to learn, they
> >(carefully or not) forget the pieces that they can reinvent on the fly.
>
>
> Perhaps it's an argument for having File.new take a block too...
>
something more systematic is needed. So far only 2 widely used
classes appear to evaluate blocks passed to new: Proc and Tk.
Furthermore Tk is somehwat confusing for the beginner because
it uses instance_eval or something completely different to eval
the block.
Currently this is a mess because many "new" methods will *silently*
ignore the block, also the inability to tell easilly if a block
is evaluated by yield, instance_eval or something completely
different is not so helpfull. To make things worse it is not
clear what, if anything is returned when a block is taken.
How to get it consistent? Leave the 2 widely used exceptions
to the rule (no block arg for new) some time to phase out and
use either a clear naming convention (eg new_wb instead of new)
or some enhanced syntax sugar to make sure blocks don't get
ignored/misinterpreted without signaling an error.
# extend Object with method new_wb requiring a block
class Object
def new_wb(*args)
if block_given?
res=new(*args)
yield res
else
raise SyntaxError, "new_wb method requires a block"
end
return res
end
end
Richard