[#1834] New syck bug — Chad Fowler <chad@...>
There is a new syck bug that appears to be caused by the recent fix for
[#1836] exit inside test/unit — nobu.nokada@...
Hi,
On Dec 1, 2003, at 02:55, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
[#1843] DRb tests hang on OS X 10.3.1 — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
I haven't yet been able to test this on another platform to see if it
[#1846] Re: Constants, class variables and the cbase field — george.marrows@...
> What kind of behavior do you want (to change)? Remember you're saying
Hi,
On Monday 01 December 2003 06:44 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday 02 December 2003 04:02 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#1884] multiple exceptions for assert_raises — nobu.nokada@...
Hi,
Hi,
On Dec 4, 2003, at 02:34, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On Dec 4, 2003, at 01:35, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
On Dec 4, 2003, at 10:39, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
[#1901] Test::Unit problem — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi,
[#1914] -Wall warnings from 1.8.1 p3 — Daniel Berger <djberge@...>
Here are some potentially significant warnings from 1.8.1 p3
nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
[#1932] --enable-pthread broken? — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
[ruby-talk: 87759] and the surrounding thread seem to indicate that
Hi,
On Dec 11, 2003, at 11:49, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>>>>> "N" == Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:
Hi,
On Dec 11, 2003, at 16:10, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
On Dec 11, 2003, at 20:48, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
>>>>> "Y" == Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
Hi,
>>>>> "Y" == Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
Hi,
>>>>> "Y" == Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
Hi,
[#1936] Can't define +@ for Symbol (plus ruby install problem) — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
I wanted to see if the +@ problem was fixed in 1.8.1 preview 3 but when I do
Hi,
On Friday 12 December 2003 02:39 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
Hi.
Hi,
[#1973] Where to install documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Folks:
Hi,
Dave Thomas (dave@pragprog.com) wrote:
>
>> Using the standard install.rb, anything you include in a project's
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:52:26PM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
Hi,
[#2013] Mixin Module, Possible Bug? — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
According to Pickaxe, Ch. 19, pg. 245, under Mixin Modules:
[#2037] --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
I've finally been able to test my application under load using the
Hi,
On Dec 23, 2003, at 14:17, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Dec 23, 2003, at 14:34, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Dec 23, 2003, at 14:44, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
> I'm afraid you're using old configure file. Can you wipe off old
On Dec 23, 2003, at 15:18, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
In message "Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults..."
On Dec 23, 2003, at 16:34, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Dec 23, 2003, at 17:04, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Dec 23, 2003, at 17:29, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
[#2071] rdoc is broken in 1.8.1 — Alexander Bokovoy <a.bokovoy@...>
Greetings!
[#2084] Error with Socket.getaddrinfo on OS X — Richard Kilmer <rich@...>
On OS X Panther:
[#2101] Can't call to_s on a frozen Date — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Interesting...
[#2102] syck segfaults when used in rdoc — Alexander Bokovoy <a.bokovoy@...>
Greetings!
>>>>> "A" == Alexander Bokovoy <a.bokovoy@sam-solutions.net> writes:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 11:41:49PM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "A" == Alexander Bokovoy <a.bokovoy@sam-solutions.net> writes:
Hi,
[#2122] Bad interaction between timeout.rb and --enable-pthread — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
Here's a testcase that shows the problem:
I should have reduced it more before posting...
Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:29, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On Jan 1, 2004, at 12:14, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
Re: [PATCH] multiple exceptions for assert_raises
On Dec 4, 2003, at 12:24, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > |> By the way "assert_raises" looks against the "plain form noun" rule > of > |> Ruby (i.e. exist? instead of exists?). Can you prepare > "assert_raise" > |> alias to it, Nathaniel? > | > |Hmmm... I wasn't aware of the rule. Is it documented somewhere? > > No. I mentioned the rule on the ruby-talk list several times though. Guess I missed it. Oh well. If I wasn't so lazy myself I'd suggest that someone should document these things :-/ > You don't have to remove assert_raises in the near future, when we > still have "has_key" method. Perhaps deprecation will be taken place > in 1.9, and they will be removed in 2.0. So #has_key? will become #have_key? Or something else? Just out of curiosity, why have you settled on this rule? At least for these cases, it seems to cut down on readability. If you've already answered that question, feel free to point me at a mailing list thread. Anyhow, I will rename the primary method to #assert_raise, and alias that method to the current #assert_raises. In 1.9, I will add a warning for #assert_raises, and in 2.0 it will disappear. Nathaniel <:((><