[#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 Mon, 24 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote: > On Sunday 23 November 2003 10:51 pm, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > > That's what LISP already had before most languages went into existence, > > and that I've been dreaming about for Ruby, and that I've been begging > > Matz to add to Ruby, since back when Ruby 1.6 was also a dream. Then I've > > wrote several letters in favour of the inclusion of that feature, and > > after receiving not enough approval, I abandoned those ideas, about two > > years ago. At that moment I had a spec and half of an implementation. > > Exactly! I actually worked up an interesting notion about it myself, > where the whole of Ruby's syntax could be viewed as nested collections > of duplicate-key ordered maps --this superset collection would then > allow for subset views like array. So an assignment, i = true, for > instance, is equavalent to :i => true. A statement without "assignemt" > is annonymous, nack => print "A". I don't have an assignment-centric view of that. I tend to organize all my stuff into structs. I made my own metadata system to describe types in a more detailed way than just using class names. The "schema" is a specification for data exchange between "compiler components", that is, any component that accepts or produces ruby code but not as a big string. It is similar to Ruby's internal AST storage, except it's designed to be convenient from the perspective of program that process code, whereas Ruby's system is designed to be processed by Ruby's internals and nothing else. (It uses pseudoobjects that aren't normally accessible from programs written in Ruby) > How did you approach it? RubySchema.rb was the specification for ruby code structures: http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/lib/metaruby/RubySchema.rb?rev=1.14&content-type=text/plain Type.rb was the specification for specifications in general: http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/lib/metaruby/Type.rb and I was supposed to split RubySchema in two so that a subset of Ruby could be factored out; that modularization of schemas would have helped making more modular "compilers" and eliminate some forms of redundancy, as several "compiler components" would instead process the "microruby language" and there would be a ruby-to-microruby translator. I stopped when I was rather close to having a conforming parser for Ruby 1.6 (I didn't write it, but I was modifying someone else's parser code). [As we know, Ruby 1.8 is already slightly different.] ________________________________________________________________ Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju