[#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: Controlled block variables
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 03:59 am, Sean E. Russell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Monday 24 November 2003 20:19, T. Onoma wrote:
> > I think you are the One confused, for not seeing what could be, for what
> > is. It does not follow the current norms of evals scope, but as I have
> > described it: cutting holes though to the higher scope.
> >
> > Would you like to see how far this rabbit hole goes? Or will you remain
> > with your limited "expectations"?
>
> Yup. I'm a stick in the mud... I like my code to follow the same rules
> wherever it occurs. What I really hate is code that is exactly the same,
> but behaves differently in different contexts.
>
> I *like* scoping rules to be reliable. I'm one of those people who doesn't
> like the proc scoping rules, although I agree that it isn't worth breaking
> the existing codebase to fix. I certainly oppose any attempts to add more
> ambiguity to Ruby's scoping.
Well okay. But I use eval a lot and I can honestly say that having a way to do
what I'm asking would really be very USEFUL, whether it fits into present
"conceptions of scope" of not. Would you be more accepting if it had its own
special syntax that explictly said "hey, i'm looking up here; I'm not in the
same scope." ?
a = [1,2,3]
eval {
p ^|a|
}
For example.
-t0
> Matz, however, is like a force of nature. You have to ride the current.
Huh. A force of nature you say?
> - --
> ### SER
> ### Deutsch|Esperanto|Francaise|Linux|XML|Java|Ruby|Aikido|Dirigibles
> ### http://www.germane-software.com/~ser jabber.com:ser ICQ:83578737
> ### GPG: http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/Security/ser_public.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/wsVqP0KxygnleI8RAqGVAKC1m8tkCTzb153iZYW3nRTzI8ve4wCeJ41u
> 765hvQNn+k+xmUW2QMYfYV8=
> =2pM+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----