[#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 Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:51:36 +0900
"T. Onoma" <transami@runbox.com> wrote:
> On Monday 24 November 2003 05:22 pm, Jamis Buck wrote:
> > Hmm. Couldn't you just do:
> >
> > a = [ 1, 2, 3 ]
> > eval "a"
>
> In such a simple case, of course. But consider:
>
> a=[1,2,3]
> eval "def z; p a; end; z"
>
I had a sudden inspiration with respect to this problem. As others
have said, you wouldn't expect this to work in any case. However, I
believe your ultimate goal is to put together code, so you can do
something like:
a = [1, 2, 3]
eval <<-END
def foo(...)
:
munge(#{a})
:
end
END
It's not really a matter of scope or not being able to put other
literals into code---these are just behaviors that prevent you from
doing this the way you're currently suggesting. The real question is,
what do you _want_? You want to take a predetermined value, and be
able to create a function or piece of code that uses this value at
some later date.
So, the trick is to just do what you want: store it. Here's a quick
hack:
class Ref
@@id = Hash.new
def initialize(ob)
@@id[ob.__id__] = ob
@ob = ob
end
def to_s
return "Ref[#{@ob.__id__}]"
end
def deref
return @ob
end
def Ref::[](id)
return @@id[id]
end
end
# You could even do this:
class Object
def to_ref
return Ref.new(self)
end
end
a = [1, 2, 3].to_ref
eval "def foo; p #{a}; end"
To say this is a bit of a hack is putting it gently, but it gets the
job done, it doesn't rely on redefining the core language, and it only
takes a few lines of code.
--
Ryan Pavlik <rpav@mephle.com>
"I'm pretty sure that 'Mr Pibb' and 'Dr Pepper' figure
rather prominently in this scheme." - 8BT