[#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: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook
In article <E1AKrZK-00059j-Kd@odie.runbox.com>,
"T. Onoma" <transami@runbox.com> writes:
> could you show example? hmm...wouldn't the expected length be in the proc already if it were needed? that's what i did with my progressbar.
For example:
% ruby -rlib/open-uri -e 'open("http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/",:progress_proc => lambda {|pos, total| p [pos, total]})'
[720, 15324]
[1144, 15324]
...
[15200, 15324]
[15324, 15324]
If Content-Length is not given:
% ruby -rlib/open-uri -e 'open("http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/",:progress_proc => lambda {|pos, total| p [pos, total]})'
[837, nil]
...
[5534, nil]
But http://www.ruby-lang.org/ reminds me redirection.
% ruby -rlib/open-uri -e 'open("http://www.ruby-lang.org/",:progress_proc => lambda {|pos, total| p [pos, total]})'
[242, nil]
[232, nil]
[720, 15324]
[1144, 15324]
...
[15200, 15324]
[15324, 15324]
First two lines which total is nil are about redirection response.
Hm. It shouldn't be called with this interface.
But it may mean this interface is not so nice...
Anyone have idea?
> ugh, my typo. what i meant was:
>
> open(url, {:pos => proc {|b| ...}})
>
> so that if, method_key = :pos and progress_prco = proc {|b| ...}
>
> would end up something like
>
> ...
> http.get(uri.to_s, header) { |str|
> buf << str
> progress_proc.call(buf.io.method(method_key).call) if progress_proc
> }
> }
> ...
>
>
> but maybe that's too odd?
I don't like that.
* It's too generic without use cases.
* It may conflict with other options in future.
--
Tanaka Akira