[#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: Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
Date: 2003-11-24 08:19:00 UTC
List: ruby-core #1750
In article <200311230648.41003.transami@runbox.com>,
  "T. Onoma" <transami@runbox.com> writes:

> I don't see how this is a big deal. When I first read this on Elliots post I 
> thought "so?" You can mispell things anywhere and its going to break stuff. 
> All you're pointing out is that no definite error is going to pop out and say 
> "hey dodo, you made a typo!".  Well, guess what? That kind of bug happens all 
> the time, especially in a dynamic language like Ruby. So I think that's a 
> very very small point, and thus doesn't invalidate less code argument. 
> Besides what do you do if no block is assigned?...more code.

I see.  You don't care typos.  But I care typos.

I decided the interface: symbol keyed hash with explicit option name
validation.  (The another idea in [ruby-core:1709])

It is a simplest way to do it.  I think other proposal's benefits
doesn't justify their code bloat and maintainability loss by their
complexity.

In future, I may reconsider the proposals if the simplest way cannot
fulfill requirements, but I don't take them now.
-- 
Tanaka Akira

In This Thread