[#1579] arity bug? — "Christoph" <chr_news@...>
Hi,
5 messages
2003/10/05
[#1588] FreeBSD problem with processes — Laurent Sansonetti <pinux@...>
Hi all,
1 message
2003/10/07
[#1591] Re: Yielding to a block from a proc? — george.marrows@...
> > Is this right? Is this pathological? Is it a bug? Is there
6 messages
2003/10/08
[#1596] PATCH: Revive NextStep, OpenStep, Rhapsody ports — Eric Sunshine <sunshine@...>
Hello,
7 messages
2003/10/09
[#1597] Re: PATCH: Revive NextStep, OpenStep, Rhapsody ports
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2003/10/09
Hi,
[#1600] CVS access — Sean Russell <ser@...>
Hiya,
8 messages
2003/10/09
[#1611] set_trace_func/Array#fetch error — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...>
I've reduced the error I reported in ruby-talk:84013 to the following code:
17 messages
2003/10/11
[#1612] Re: set_trace_func/Array#fetch error
— ts <decoux@...>
2003/10/11
>>>>> "N" == Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:
[#1616] Re: set_trace_func/Array#fetch error
— "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...>
2003/10/11
ts [mailto:decoux@moulon.inra.fr] wrote:
[#1617] Re: set_trace_func/Array#fetch error
— ts <decoux@...>
2003/10/11
>>>>> "N" == Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:
[#1618] Re: set_trace_func/Array#fetch error
— "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...>
2003/10/11
ts [mailto:decoux@moulon.inra.fr] wrote:
[#1634] stringy range bug — "Christoph" <chr_news@...>
Hi,
6 messages
2003/10/15
[#1640] SystemStackError in embedding — Sentinel <sentinel27@...>
Hi, I am just now trying to embed ruby into my apprication
8 messages
2003/10/18
Re: PATCH: Revive NextStep, OpenStep, Rhapsody ports
From:
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@...>
Date:
2003-10-10 14:21:45 UTC
List:
ruby-core #1606
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:27:23 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > |Here is a patch which revives the NextStep, OpenStep, and Rhapsody ports > |of Ruby. These ports seem to have languished for some time and have become > |unbuildable. I also included an appropriate ChangeLog entry. > Hmm. It's huge. Could somebody confirm these changes, especially > ones for ext/curses.c that modifies behavior? I'd like to merge the > patch, but I don't want to break things. I can re-submit the patch without the fixes for those three methods in the curses module, if you like. Would this be more acceptable? -- ES