[#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: block locals & Ruby2 [was Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook]
On Sunday 23 November 2003 10:04 pm, Mauricio Fern疣dez wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:32:09AM +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> > 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
>
> This would work with the new rules (and the current ones), I believe:
>
> def foo(n)
> (0...n).map { proc {|a| proc{ a += 1; a } }[0] }
> 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.
>
> It won't be impossible, just inconvenient.
actually using
foo(3).each { |q| p q.call }
they both produce
1
1
1
but in both, if you add a=0:
def foo(n)
a = 0
(0...n).map { proc {|a| proc{ a += 1; a } }[0] }
end
then
1
2
3
So you tell me how it changes in new system, cause I don't know. i'm
guessing the first won't be 1 1 1 anymore. but who am i to say? i find the
examples confusing enough in themselves :).
-t0