[#14696] Inconsistency in rescuability of "return" — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>

Why can you not rescue return, break, etc when they are within

21 messages 2008/01/02
[#14699] Re: Inconsistency in rescuability of "return" — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2008/01/02

[#14738] Enumerable#zip Needs Love — James Gray <james@...>

The community has been building a Ruby 1.9 compatibility tip list on

15 messages 2008/01/03
[#14755] Re: Enumerable#zip Needs Love — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2008/01/04

Hello James,

[#14772] Manual Memory Management — Pramukta Kumar <prak@...>

I was thinking it would be nice to be able to free large objects at

36 messages 2008/01/04
[#14788] Re: Manual Memory Management — Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@...> 2008/01/05

I would only like to add that RMgick for example provides free method to

[#14824] Re: Manual Memory Management — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2008/01/07

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:49:30 +0900, Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@gmail.com> wrote:

[#14825] Re: Manual Memory Management — "Evan Weaver" <evan@...> 2008/01/07

Python supports 'del reference', which decrements the reference

[#14838] Re: Manual Memory Management — Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@...> 2008/01/08

Evan Weaver wrote:

[#14911] Draft of some pages about encoding in Ruby 1.9 — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

24 messages 2008/01/10

[#14976] nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...>

The following just appeared in the ChangeLog

37 messages 2008/01/11
[#14977] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/11

Hi,

[#14978] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/01/11

[#14979] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/01/11

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#14993] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/01/11

[#14980] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2008/01/11

[#14981] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/11

Hi,

[#14995] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/01/11

Yukihiro Matsumoto writes:

[#15050] how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Phlip <phlip2005@...>

Core Rubies:

17 messages 2008/01/13
[#15060] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/01/14

On Jan 13, 2008, at 08:54 AM, Phlip wrote:

[#15062] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Phlip <phlip2005@...> 2008/01/14

Eric Hodel wrote:

[#15073] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/01/14

On Jan 13, 2008, at 20:35 PM, Phlip wrote:

[#15185] Friendlier methods to compare two Time objects — "Jim Cropcho" <jim.cropcho@...>

Hello,

10 messages 2008/01/22

[#15194] Can large scale projects be successful implemented around a dynamic programming language? — Jordi <mumismo@...>

A good article I have found (may have been linked by slashdot, don't know)

8 messages 2008/01/24

[#15248] Symbol#empty? ? — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

24 messages 2008/01/28
[#15250] Re: Symbol#empty? ? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/28

Hi,

Strange behavior when send is used to call private method :binding

From: Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink@...>
Date: 2008-01-05 16:53:11 UTC
List: ruby-core #14793
Hi everyone,

When I run the following code:

class Test
   def func
     puts "here"
   end
end

t = Test.new
b = t.send(:binding)
eval("func", b)

I get the following error message:

binding_test.rb:9:in `eval': undefined local variable or method `func'  
for main:Object (NameError)
	from binding_test.rb:9:in `eval'
	from binding_test.rb:9:in `<main>'

When I create a public method in Test that returns the binding, it  
does work. So in this case I would expect one of two things to happen:

- This works
- It raises an error because I'm using send to call a private method.  
Something like "private method 'binding' called for #<Test>".

I can live with both solutions, but the current behavior doesn't  
strike me as abiding the principle of least surprise.

-- 
Regards,

Dirkjan

In This Thread

Prev Next