[#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
On Sunday 23 November 2003 07:12 pm, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> 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.
Actually I agree. I don't know why Matz thinks this is the "most regrettable
behavior in Ruby". To me it makes perfect sense --a varaible is visible in
the scope it was defined and all inner "sub"-scopes. How can you get any more
POLS then that? I'd even take it further and make "instance varaibles" work
likewise (but that's another story). Sure, you have to define a dummy
variable on the outside of block to get it to come out the other end, but
that's exactly becuase that's the scope level you want it to exist in --sort
of self documenting.
> 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.
Well I don't think so, but I'm crazy so.... I think there's just some
irrational distaste for i = nil at the root of this (no one likes to have
nothing ;)
So what's this merging of Module and Class all about?
> > 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?
Refelection is when code can look at itself (inspection) and also manipulate
itself. So Ruby has reflection at the OO level. It's one of the greatest
things about Ruby. Structural reflection is a step or two lower, where a
language can actually manipulate its own statements, yet is still a rung or
two above on-the-fly syntax manipulation. Here's a pseudo example:
def m
print "A"
print "B"
end
m; puts >> "AB"
puts m:[0].to_s # => print "A"
puts m:[1].to_s # => print "B"
m: << lambda { print "C" }
m; puts >> "ABC"
The colon notation used here to refer to the method "structure" of m is
completely made up, but you get the idea. With structural reflection, I can
manipulate the code on-the-fly as if it were an array of statements, for
example.
Actually, Ruby does have some *limited structural reflection* through the use
of eval.
-t0