[#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 20:32:09 UTC
List: ruby-core #1741
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:

> This WILL brake code. Consider:
>   a = [1,2,3]
>   a.each { |x| i = x + i.to_i }
>   p "#{i}"  # => "6"
>   a = [1,2,3]
>   a.each { |x| i = x + i.to_i }
>   p "#{i}"  # => "12"  # => Doh! It's not 6 anymore!

The current policy on the value of i is that i doesn't exist in the
outerscope, so currently it doesn't matter that its value is not 6,
because the variable isn't available at all so the first p i doesn't do
anything.

#<NameError: (eval):1: undefined local variable or method `i'>



I think the actual problem would be more with code that does things like
this:

def foo(n)
  (0...n).map {
    proc {a=0; proc{a+=1;a}}[]
  }
end

I expect this code to produce n distinct counters that will each produce
their own independent sequence 1,2,3,4,5,... when called repeatedly. If it
becomes impossible to do this anymore, then I won't be able to honestly
say that Ruby really supports closures.

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


In This Thread