[#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 10:51 pm, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> If it's just the look of "i=nil" that is a problem, then usually you can
> just do "i=true" and already it looks so much more assertive and positive.
> I mean, "i=true" looks like a bright sunny day, while "i=nil" looks like
> "i am nihil" and makes you think of romantic existentialists dressed in
> black in a dark smoky bar, muttering in a pathetically tragic dark voice
> that life is meaningless.
:)) (made my sunny day) [Note: I tried to be witty in return, but you know,
I'm just not going to top that. She's one for the books!]
> However sometimes i often need to incrementally construct an array with a
> loop, and #map doesn't always work for this, so i create a r=[] outside of
> the loop. Is that something you'd call ugly?
>
> > > > 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,
>
> That's what LISP already had before most languages went into existence,
> and that I've been dreaming about for Ruby, and that I've been begging
> Matz to add to Ruby, since back when Ruby 1.6 was also a dream. Then I've
> wrote several letters in favour of the inclusion of that feature, and
> after receiving not enough approval, I abandoned those ideas, about two
> years ago. At that moment I had a spec and half of an implementation.
Exactly! I actually worked up an interesting notion about it myself, where the
whole of Ruby's syntax could be viewed as nested collections of duplicate-key
ordered maps --this superset collection would then allow for subset views
like array. So an assignment, i = true, for instance, is equavalent to :i =>
true. A statement without "assignemt" is annonymous, nack => print "A". def,
class and module become associations to nested collections, eg. def x; ... ;
end, being equivalet to :x => { ... }. Even parameter lists become annonymous
valued collections, (x,y) being { :x => nack, :y => nack }. perhaps a bit
"out there". But an interesting unification of the whole of the language
structure, nonetheless.
How did you approach it?
> > Actually, Ruby does have some *limited structural reflection* through
> > the use of eval.
>
> I don't really see how the current eval() has something to do with it.
Well, very limited. Probably not even worth mentioning, but you could do some
tricky code wraps with alias and class_eval based on aritys, for instance.
-t0