[#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: testunit, exit status and at_exit
Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org] wrote: > In message "Re: testunit, exit status and at_exit" > on 03/07/22, "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes: > > | 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?) > > They are executed reverse order they are defined. I think > there's a reason for this order, which I don't remember correctly now. Oops, I had that backwards. > On my prototype, the first one wins. Is this OK? The first one defined, or the first one executed? My initial expectation is for the last one executed to win, but either way is OK for Test::Unit - I figure that if people start defining a bunch of END procs in their tests, they've created their own troubles. If for some reason this strategy doesn't work, they can always fall back on starting tests manually (via a "__FILE__ == $0" check or something like it). > | 2. Calling #exit in an END proc does nothing, but calling #exit! > |immediately terminates with the given status (skipping any remaining > |END procs). > > It works even now. But Calling exit! bypasses other END > procs and finalizers. Yup, I discovered that after my last email. I thought it would be an OK solution, but forgot about finalizers. It's probably best to not skip them in a case as regular as a failing test. Nathaniel <:((><