[#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: testunit, exit status and at_exit

From: Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
Date: 2003-07-21 20:11:26 UTC
List: ruby-core #1268
On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 12:51  PM, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:

> Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org] wrote:
>> OK.  But you need to help me to clarify the problem.  What if
>> there's multiple END proc that calls "exit"?  Can I choose
>> arbitrary one?
> I was wondering if that would be a problem. For my situation, either 
> of the
> following would work:
>   1. The last exit status that is set wins. So if there are multiple 
> END
> procs, and they all set the exit status (by calling #exit), the last 
> one
> registered wins (END procs are called in the order they are defined,
> correct?)
>   2. Calling #exit in an END proc does nothing, but calling #exit!
> immediately terminates with the given status (skipping any remaining 
> END
> procs).

I expect exit to do just that. I would want the first one hit to exit 
on the spot. Maybe we should add set_exit_code(n) or something 
similarly not confusing?


In This Thread