[#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 Thursday 27 November 2003 12:57 am, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Thanks Mathieu. That clears things up very nicely.
Happy Thanksgiving!
-t0
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:
> > 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?
>
> A Ruby message is in four parts:
>
> * receiver (optional, defaults to self)
> * selector (symbol of method name)
> * regular args (including optional "=" args, and *varargs)
> * block (optional, and not a real value)
>
> The &z assigns to z the result of converting the block part of the active
> message into a Proc object. This conversion happens because blocks are not
> objects (apparently it's a significant speed gain to make it work that
> way?)
>
> > And I still get confused: when do I need the & in my method? And so
> > on.
>
> You need & (or equivalently, Proc.new) when you want to do something with
> the block which is not possible by just using "yield" and "block_given?".
> For example, to pass a block from a method call to another, you need to
> pick up the block using & in the param-list (or Proc.new), and then pass
> it to another method using & in the call.
>
> > 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.)\
>
> Because of the need for a short and obvious way of distinguishing an empty
> array from an empty hash. Apart from that it would have been nice. Another
> idea is that if blocks were always like {|...| ... } with the vertical
> bars, then no confusion is possible. Anyway, { ... } as a block is
> equivalent to {|*| ... } IIRC (or maybe that's yet another thing that
> changed to whatever else in 1.8.)
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju