[#13161] hacking on the "heap" implementation in gc.c — Lloyd Hilaiel <lloyd@...>
Hi all,
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:09:53AM +0900, Lloyd Hilaiel wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 03:15:52AM +0900, Lloyd Hilaiel wrote:
Paul Brannan wrote:
[#13182] Thinking of dropping YAML from 1.8 — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
Hello all.
On 11/3/07, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2007, at 3:47 PM, Alexey Verkhovsky wrote:
where to start ... to fix the YAML code bugs
Ujwal Reddy Malipeddi wrote:
[#13196] Subscribe to list w/o email — Trans <transfire@...>
I'm now using the ruby-core-google interface to this list, rather then
[#13198] Ruby's Standard Library could use a lead maintainer — "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.brown@...>
Hi folks,
On Nov 4, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Gregory Brown wrote:
James Edward Gray II wrote:
On 11/4/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
[#13206] guessutf 1.0.0 released — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>
Dear Ruby designers, developers, and testers!
[#13221] Re: Ruby's Standard Library could use a lead maintainer — Brent Roman <brent@...>
Brent Roman schrieb:
On 11/5/07, Wolfgang N疆asi-Donner <ed.odanow@wonado.de> wrote:
Gregory Brown schrieb:
[#13238] performance problem in 1.9 — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>
Checked latest 1.9 out of svn last week to run this test.
Paul Brannan wrote:
[#13248] Re: performance problem in 1.9 — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>
Is it possible that it has a relationship with my remark about identifying
[#13254] send can't call protected methods, but invoke_method can — David Flanagan <david@...>
Hi,
[#13259] Frightening retry behavior should be deprecated and removed — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
Witness:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#13283] Problem with installing latest version — Martin Duerst <duerst@...>
I just tried to compile and install the latest SVG revision, 13837.
[#13288] Unrecovered memory leak thoughts. — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...>
So it seems from my trivial analysis that there are instances when
On 11/8/07, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 09:13:34PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
[#13289] Proposal of a new operator for Method and Proc — Jordi <mumismo@...>
Hello, this email is long but I hope you to read it. I think it is worth it.
Jordi wrote:
On Nov 8, 2007 7:03 PM, Gonzalo Garramu <ggarra@advancedsl.com.ar> wrote:
[#13292] Leak with regexp in method with no local vars. — "Jonas Pfenniger" <zimbatm@...>
The rubyforge -> ml link seems to be down so here is the link :
Also reproducible with
2007/11/9, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com>:
[#13305] The document of random algorithm? — sishen <yedingding@...>
Hi, guys. I want to know the detailed algorithm of random number.
[#13315] primary encoding and source encoding — David Flanagan <david@...>
I've got a couple of questions about the handling of primary encoding.
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
In article <E1IqOZI-0001t7-LT@x31>,
Hi,
[#13347] http compression, zlib agnostic, for 1.9 — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
I have revised my http compression (gzip, deflate) patch such that
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:28:01AM +0900, Hugh Sasse wrote:
[#13351] Keyword Arguments — Trans <transfire@...>
Peter Vanbroekhoven mentioned this to me and I have to agree. I'd
[#13362] RubyGems imported into 1.9 trunk — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
There are a few tests breaking due to rbconfig.rb not matching what ./
On Nov 10, 2007 4:53 PM, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2007, at 01:21 , Jordi wrote:
Eric,
On Nov 10, 2007, at 15:44 , David Flanagan wrote:
Eric Hodel wrote:
On Nov 11, 2007, at 22:34 , David Flanagan wrote:
[#13363] IO.read, IO#read (and similar methods) - Length Parameter Usage for Non One-Byte Encodings — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>
Good morning dear Ruby folks!
[#13368] method names in 1.9 — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Hi --
Hi,
Hi --
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On 11/11/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
Austin Ziegler wrote:
David Flanagan wrote:
Hi --
Quoting dblack@rubypal.com, on Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:45:42AM +0900:
Hi -
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:40:22PM +0900, David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
Summing it up:
Hi --
On Nov 12, 2007 8:42 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
On 12/11/2007, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:50:18PM +0900, Trans wrote:
On Nov 11, 2007 7:01 PM, Matthew Boeh <mboeh@desperance.net> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:06:44PM +0900, Jordi wrote:
On Nov 11, 2007 5:01 AM, Matthew Boeh <mboeh@desperance.net> wrote:
[#13377] Link errors for trunk on Mac OS X — "Lyle Johnson" <fxrubyguy@...>
Apologies in advance if this is a FAQ, but I'm trying to build the
[#13457] mingw rename — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...>
Currently for different windows' builds, the names for RUBY_PLATFORM
On Nov 12, 2007 10:13 PM, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@gmail.com> wrote:
[#13470] trunk's parse.c fails to compile — "Laurent Sansonetti" <laurent.sansonetti@...>
Hi,
Laurent Sansonetti wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
[#13485] Proposal: Array#walker — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>
Good morning all together!
A nicer version may be...
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Trans wrote:
Hugh Sasse wrote:
There is one big difference between the actual proposals and my original
[#13498] state of threads in 1.9 — Jordi <mumismo@...>
Are Threads mapped to threads on the underlying operating system in
On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:18 , Bill Kelly wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007 7:33 AM, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
Jordi wrote:
[#13513] Proc#hash returns different values for same body — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>
Hi!
[#13528] test/unit and miniunit — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
When is the 1.9 freeze?
On Nov 14, 2007, at 18:43 , Trans wrote:
[#13536] mswin32-vc6 segmentation fault due ruby_in_eval wrong definition — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...>
Summary:
Hi,
On Nov 15, 2007 12:44 PM, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#13542] Iconv#iconv returning wrong object — "Dirk Traulsen" <dirk.traulsen@...>
c:\>ri Iconv#iconv
Hi,
Am 15 Nov 2007 um 21:58 hat Nobuyoshi Nakada geschrieben:
Hi,
Am 16 Nov 2007 um 17:07 hat Nobuyoshi Nakada geschrieben:
[#13564] Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc. — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>
Good evening all together!
Matz has added Object.tap to Ruby 1.9 which is intended for use in
On Nov 15, 2007 8:14 PM, Wolfgang N疆asi-Donner <ed.odanow@wonado.de> wrote:
Nikolai Weibull schrieb:
Hi --
Hi --
On Nov 16, 2007 3:19 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
Hi --
David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
On Nov 16, 2007 12:40 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
Rick DeNatale wrote:
murphy schrieb:
Hi --
On 11/16/07, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 12:40 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 3:40 AM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
Nikolai Weibull schrieb:
[#13600] Re: [PATCH] CGI::Session::PStore partitioned directories — Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
In article <473D827F.10909@gmail.com>,
[#13614] Suggestion for native thread tests — "Eust痃uio Rangel" <eustaquiorangel@...>
Hi!
Eust痃uio Rangel wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 2:02 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 2:25 PM, Eust痃uio Rangel <eustaquiorangel@gmail.com> wrote:
[#13618] segfault in ostruct with 1.8.6, where to get help? — "andrew taylor" <aktxyz@...>
Hello folks, not sure if this is the right place...
run it in gdb, see if it gives you a better backtrace (?)
[#13685] Problems with \M-x in utf-8 encoded strings — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>
Hi!
At 22:01 07/11/18, Wolfgang N〓dasi-Donner wrote:
Martin Duerst schrieb:
[#13688] base64.c vs. base64.rb — Trans <transfire@...>
Hi--
[#13704] Build failure trying to use rb_define_alias on rb_mKernel — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi,
[#13709] Change in system() behaviour — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
In 1.8, system("badcmd") returned false.
[#13741] retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
In 1.8, I could write:
On Nov 23, 2007 12:06 PM, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
Chiming in again on this...
In article <10A28D45-97EE-47EB-B98A-1B197F30C0E9@fallingsnow.net>,
In article <6168A472-3688-4D85-AAE1-49A2F376B908@fallingsnow.net>,
Dave Thomas wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
Dave Thomas wrote:
[#13781] C-Core-Questions — <saladin.mundi@...>
Hi guys, sorry that I'm posting into the core mailinglist, but in the talk mailinglist no one could'nt / didnt't want to give me some answers about some (basic ? ) ruby core questions.
[#13787] Syntax error when using comment between two lines in new method chain syntax — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>
Hi!
[#13792] Anyone tried -r debug on OSX? — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
It hangs for me here. I have to kill -9 to stop it.
[#13805] Socket.gethostbyname and Reverse Lookups: A Strange and Terrible Saga — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...>
(with apologies to Hunter Thompson ;)
Re: retry semantics changed
On Nov 24, 2007 8:13 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote: > Wolfgang N叩dasi-Donner wrote: > > => > > > > before 'Otto' > > In 'a' > > In 'b' > > In 'c' > > before 'Otto' > > In 'a' > > In 'b' > > In 'c' > > > > ..., because the whole method chain is evaluated again. This combined > > with the new possible syntax... > > The reason this happens is because retry triggers both the receiver and > the arguments to be reevaluated. In eval.c parlance, it causes the retry > event to bubble all the way out to the iter node (the block-holding AST > node that surrounds block-receiving calls) and then starts evaluation > again, resulting in the whole call being revisited. > > So if the receiver is reevaluated, and the receiver is a call on another > call on another call...they all get reevaluated. Same goes for the > arguments. Right. I think the only good way to handle that is to actually handle it rather than invent an ugly way to abuse something like retry over iteration expressions. If there is a concern on losing the ability to build natural looking flow control methods, then maybe we should be talking about alternative options. Otherwise, it seems that most already agree that retry (outside of begin-end) is quite a cumbersome operation for both implementors and developers. Are we continuing the debate to remove the block form from 1.9 or are we trying for something else? I am curious to know what course of action people would like to be taken here. Brian.