[#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 02:27 pm, David A. Black wrote: Blah.
You're a real whirlwind of positive attitude.
I won't even bother respoding to this. You'd think the world just came to an
end becuase I suggested that, just maybe, eval could extend its horizons a
little.
And at least on this list, a few people ARE interested enough to talk about
it.
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:
> > On Monday 24 November 2003 06:40 pm, Sean E Russell wrote:
> > > On Monday 24 November 2003 11:51, T. Onoma wrote:
> > > > In such a simple case, of course. But consider:
> > > >
> > > > a=[1,2,3]
> > > > eval "def z; p a; end; z"
> > >
> > > But... this doesn't work in Ruby anyway. 'a' isn't in scope inside the
> > > method. Cut, paste, and run:
> > >
> > > a = [1,2,3]
> > > def z
> > > p a
> > > end
> > > z
> > >
> > > Why should method definitions in evals behave any differently?
> >
> > What's the point of having eval, then? Look at your example. By your
> > argument there's no point in eval at all. Would you say the same thing
> > about:
>
> No, by Sean's argument there is no point having eval do some kind of
> bizarre magical treatment, before it's even executed, of local
> variables inside a scope that doesn't exist yet.
>
> > a = [1,2,3]
> > eval %Q{
> > def z
> > p "#{a}"
> > end
> > z
> > }
> >
> > Should that be 'wrong' b/c "this doesn't work in Ruby anyway. 'a' isn't
> > in scope inside the method."
> >
> > No. Eval is for constructing code piecemeal with various variables, not
> > just to do what can already be done without it. But as it stands, one
> > must build literals within strings to accomplish such things. That's a
> > lot of extra work and makes for choppy ugly code.
>
> eval is not for constructing code piecemeal with various variables.
> eval is for evaluating strings as code at runtime. If you wish to use
> that facility for the purpose of constructing code piecemeal with
> various variables, you may do so. But if a facility that evaluates
> strings as code at runtime does not help you construct code piecemeal
> with various variables, then you need to find another way to do it or
> reconsider what you're doing.
>
> eval is rather simple, and provides a functionality that exists in
> many languages. The first thing that happens is that a string gets
> created. Then it gets evaluated as code.
>
> In your example, the string that gets created is:
>
> def z
> p [1,2,3]
> end
> z
>
> Then it gets evaluated as code. The string does not, cannot, and must
> not communicate some non-existent knowledge of the future scope of
> what will be created once it's eval'd to eval.
>
> You can't solve every programming issue by introducing a new feature
> to the language, coming up with new (but usually already in-use)
> syntax, or redefining concepts like runtime string evaluation to fit
> one or two particular cases for which it isn't the right answer in the
> first place.
>
> > Of course, the above example dosen't really do what I want it to. For
> > that, I have to get fancy:
> >
> > p "#{a.join(',')}"
> >
> > I don't like getting fancy.
>
> I don't either, which is why I don't think it's good to resort right
> out of the starting gate to syntax and core language changes. New
> syntax and rules is not always the answer.
>
> Speaking of "core language", I'm not sure what this is doing on this
> list. It belongs on ruby-talk, or perhaps on a wiki somewhere.
> So.... <http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?EvalAndScope>. I honestly
> think that's a better place for wide-ranging, open-ended, speculative
> discussions of the nature of string evaluation and so on.
>
>
> David