[#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 11:13 pm, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Hmm...there would have to be an exception made for lambdas. Another
> > minus.
>
> what's the difference between a lambda/proc and a block?
That was the very first thing that I did not understood about Ruby, and still
do not. Why are blocks and lambdas (and maybe methods for that matter)
treated so distinctly? (In fact, you can still see the chicken scratch on
page 10 of my Pickaxe.)
Take the def statement for example, why the odd sugar?: def blocky(x,y,&z).
why not def blocky(x,y){z}? But then & isn't exactly just sugar. Is it? And I
still get confused: when do I need the & in my method? And so on. No, unless
there's some subtle aspect to this I do not understand, it would be much more
intuitive if blocks were just treated as Proc/Lambda arguments that happened
to have a special outside of ( ) notation.
I've also wished that Proc/Lambdas had there own unique delimiteres and not
shared them with hashes. (Couldn't hashes have shared delimiters with array
instead? The => gives them away, after all.) It would have simplified the
symbol sematics.
> BTW it's impossible for a method that receive a blocks to pass it to
> another method without turning it into a proc/lambda (using the &
> prefixes), so it makes distinctions between lambda/proc and block rather
> undesirable, as there are some techniques that rely on passing blocks
> around, and can't work if it involves a difference of behaviour between
> "real block" and "block that was converted from a proc that was converted
> from a block".
>
> So I'm not sure how that exception would work at all, if an exception were
> to be applied...
Now we know the solution: local {"I knew it would come to this..."}
-t0