[#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: Richard Zidlicky <rz@...68k.org>
Date: 2003-07-22 10:08:13 UTC
List: ruby-core #1276
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:59:19PM +0900, ts wrote:
> >>>>> "R" == Richard Zidlicky <rz@linux-m68k.org> writes:
> 
> R>   Hash.new begin 12 end
> 
>      Hash.new do 12 end
> 
> R> it is rather irritating if the block is plainly ignored.
> 
>  This is what the documentation is for.

After suffering a few problems like that where the documentation
was less than perfect I see it differently.
Is there any techincal reason why it would be unreasonable to
raise an error in this situation?
Weak typed languages are fine but this looks more like 
a blunt problem with the implementation.

Richard

In This Thread