[#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: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook

From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2003-11-23 18:12:29 UTC
List: ruby-core #1737
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:

> Tanaka Akira:
> > pbar = nil
> > open("http://...",
> >   :content_length_proc => lambda {|s|
> >     (pbar = ProgressBar.new("test", s)).file_transfer_mode if s
> >   },
> >   :progress_proc => lambda {|s|
> >     pbar.set s if pbar
> >   })
> > In Ruby2, `pbar = nil' can be dropped.
>
> yes, it seems almost bizarre that pbar is kept "on hand" by both
> lambdas. this is closure right? wow! this could have big effects on
> Ruby1 code running with Ruby2.

I'm puzzled by how this new behaviour would make anything actually easier
for anyone, while demanding significant workarounds for code that relies
on having separate locals for multiple activations of a closure.

Unless I'm really missing something big (please tell me!), it seems to be
about on the same level as my proposed merging of Module and Class, except
that my proposal didn't have such an obvious compatibility impact.

> p.s. if you don't mind me asking, what do you think of Structural
> Reflection?

never heard about it, though the words do sound familiar. what is it?

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju


In This Thread