[#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
Hi,
In message "Re: [PATCH] multiple exceptions for assert_raises"
on 03/12/05, Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:
|Guess I missed it. Oh well. If I wasn't so lazy myself I'd suggest that
|someone should document these things :-/
Should have been written somewhere. Maybe in the FAQ.
|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.
We have "key?" and "value?" for Hash.
The reason is mostly because I'm not an English speaker. I sometimes
feel weird when I see code like:
members.has_key?("foo")
|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.
Thank you.
matz.