[#1651] A min/max bug? — "Christoph" <chr_news@...>
Hi,
[#1690] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Elliott Hughes <ehughes@...>
In effect. I mean that if a method's interface is getting too complicated,
In article <AD4480A509455343AEFACCC231BA850F17C358@ukexchange>,
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 07:51:42PM +0900, Tanaka Akira wrote:
[#1699] FileUtils bug and fix — Chad Fowler <chad@...>
As posted in ruby-talk:85349, I believe there is a bug in FileUtils.cp's
[#1706] gc_sweep in Ruby 1.8 — Richard Kilmer <rich@...>
I posted about this before but Matz wanted me to post more detail.
>>>>> "R" == Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> writes:
[#1711] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
Tanaka Akira:
On Sunday 23 November 2003 07:12 pm, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sunday 23 November 2003 08:26 pm, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sunday 23 November 2003 09:32 pm, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sunday 23 November 2003 11:13 pm, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:32:09AM +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
[#1716] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
Tanaka Akira:
[#1718] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Elliott Hughes <ehughes@...>
In article <AD4480A509455343AEFACCC231BA850F17C434@ukexchange>,
On Saturday 22 November 2003 04:34 pm, Tanaka Akira wrote:
In article <200311221024.05642.transami@runbox.com>,
On Sunday 23 November 2003 02:24 am, Tanaka Akira wrote:
In article <200311230325.21687.transami@runbox.com>,
On Sunday 23 November 2003 03:10 pm, Tanaka Akira wrote:
In article <200311230648.41003.transami@runbox.com>,
On Monday 24 November 2003 03:19, Tanaka Akira wrote:
Sean E Russell [mailto:ser@germane-software.com] wrote:
[#1753] gc_sweep under 1.8 ... not syck.so — Richard Kilmer <rich@...>
We still encountered a gc_sweep in our use of Ruby 1.8 on Linux (v8).
>>>>> "R" == Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> writes:
Yes, there are several (Ruby) threads working during this gc_sweep.
>>>>> "R" == Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> writes:
of course this effects 300 machines ;-)
>>>>> "R" == Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> writes:
The saga continues:
>>>>> "R" == Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> writes:
There is a discussion (found by chad fowler) on ruby-dev (22000)
[#1755] Re: Controlled block variables — Jamis Buck <jgb3@...>
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 02:04, T. Onoma wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2003 05:22 pm, Jamis Buck wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2003 11:51, T. Onoma wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2003 06:40 pm, Sean E Russell wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2003 14:02, T. Onoma wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2003 09:15 pm, Sean E Russell wrote:
[#1799] Syck install on Debian Standard (Ruby 1.6.7) — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
Hi, I'm having some trouble installing Syck on Debain (woody). I'm not
On Friday 28 November 2003 09:17 am, T. Onoma wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 05:22:48PM +0900, T. Onoma wrote:
[#1819] Re: configure.in: do not override CCDLDFLAGS, LDFLAGS, XLDFLAGS — Eric Sunshine <sunshine@...>
Hello,
Re: Class variable and singleton problem
Thanks Christoph, the tests (test_variable.rb) help a lot. I guess the main reason for the current mechanism is to allow the singleton methods Gods.ruler1 and Gods.ruler2 to find the Gods @@rule variable. The 'intuitive' rule wouldn't allow that. Thanks everyone for taking the time to explain this. Promised wiki page will appear this weekend! -- George > -----Original Message----- > From: Christoph [mailto:chr_news@gmx.net] > Sent: 11 November 2003 18:54 > To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org > Subject: Re: Class variable and singleton problem > > > George marrows wrote: > ... > > Thanks to you and Guy, I think I now understand what it's > > doing - we could call it the 'surrounding class then > > inheritance hierarchy' rule. > > > > .. but I'm afraid I'm still not clear on *why* this rule is > > used, in particular how it helps to 'make scope resolution as > > static as possible'. > > Could you provide an example? > > You can find an example on why this probably a good idea in > test.rb located in the sample directory of Ruby's source tree - grep > for "Titans" - (just image the morass of extra rules you > would need to > define to resolve this example if you start of with a simple > ``intuitive'' lookup rule). > To throw in a little history, Ruby once had more ``intuitive'' and > seemingly simpler class variable scoping rules. However, because of > their inconstancies they were dropped, and new rules were adopted > modeled more closely around the constant scoping rules (static scope) > - not however in contrast to the former that singleton classes are > not valid scopes (see Guy's post) for class variables. > > > All I see at the moment is that the rule introduces a (to me) > > unintuitive special case for singleton methods: in Mark's > > example, o is effectively a subclass of A, so it seems > > strange it can't directly access its class vars. > > (See the ongoing ruby-talk discussion about objects with > > singleton methods still being examples of their 'original' class..) > > > > Thanks again for taking the time to explain. I'll write this > > up on the wiki when we're done. > > Here is another ``weird'' example for your wiki. > > --- > class A > @@var = :A > end > > class B > @@var = :B > end > > class B > $a = A.new > def $a.var > @@var > end > end > > class A > $b = B.new > def $b.var > @@var > end > end > > p $a.var # :B > p $b.var # :A > --- > > > /Christoph > >