[#1711] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>

Tanaka Akira:

22 messages 2003/11/19
[#1737] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/11/23

[#1739] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/11/23

[#1740] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/23

On Sunday 23 November 2003 08:26 pm, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#1741] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/11/23

[#1718] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Elliott Hughes <ehughes@...>

22 messages 2003/11/21
[#1722] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2003/11/22

In article <AD4480A509455343AEFACCC231BA850F17C434@ukexchange>,

[#1724] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/22

On Saturday 22 November 2003 04:34 pm, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#1726] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2003/11/23

In article <200311221024.05642.transami@runbox.com>,

[#1731] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/23

On Sunday 23 November 2003 02:24 am, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#1732] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2003/11/23

In article <200311230325.21687.transami@runbox.com>,

[#1733] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/23

On Sunday 23 November 2003 03:10 pm, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#1750] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2003/11/24

In article <200311230648.41003.transami@runbox.com>,

[#1759] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Sean E Russell <ser@...> 2003/11/24

On Monday 24 November 2003 03:19, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#1762] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2003/11/24

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).

16 messages 2003/11/24
[#1754] Re: gc_sweep under 1.8 ... not syck.so — ts <decoux@...> 2003/11/24

>>>>> "R" == Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> writes:

[#1757] Re: gc_sweep under 1.8 ... not syck.so — Richard Kilmer <rich@...> 2003/11/24

Yes, there are several (Ruby) threads working during this gc_sweep.

[#1758] Re: gc_sweep under 1.8 ... not syck.so — ts <decoux@...> 2003/11/24

>>>>> "R" == Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> writes:

[#1763] Re: gc_sweep under 1.8 ... not syck.so — Richard Kilmer <rich@...> 2003/11/24

of course this effects 300 machines ;-)

[#1755] Re: Controlled block variables — Jamis Buck <jgb3@...>

On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 02:04, T. Onoma wrote:

26 messages 2003/11/24
[#1756] Re: Controlled block variables — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/24

On Monday 24 November 2003 05:22 pm, Jamis Buck wrote:

[#1760] Re: Controlled block variables — Sean E Russell <ser@...> 2003/11/24

On Monday 24 November 2003 11:51, T. Onoma wrote:

[#1761] Re: Controlled block variables — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/24

On Monday 24 November 2003 06:40 pm, Sean E Russell wrote:

Re: FileUtils bug and fix

From: Geoff Youngs <g@...>
Date: 2003-11-17 22:06:40 UTC
List: ruby-core #1701
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 03:04:10AM +0900, Chad Fowler wrote:
> As posted in ruby-talk:85349, I believe there is a bug in
> FileUtils.cp's handling of copying a file onto itself.  Attached is a
> small proposed fix.

Would this be better done in copy_file()?  (There's also a small typo in
the patch - you meant 

	raise ArgumentError, "`#{s}' and `#{d}' are the same file" if (File.expand_path(src) == File.expand_path(dest))


e.g.
def copy_file( src, dest )
  src, dest = *[src,dest].collect(File.method(expand_path))
  raise ArgumentError, "`#{src}' and `#{dest}' are the same file" if src == dest
  
  File.open(src,  'rb') {|r|
  File.open(dest, 'wb') {|w|
         copy_stream r, w
  } }
end
							

Alternatively same src/dest could be checked for in fu_each_dest_src, so
that mv() and ln() also benefit?

TTFN,


Geoff.


In This Thread