[#2320] Problems in mathn, rational, complex, matrix — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
I received a message from Richard Graham mentioning a problem in the
[#2346] Patch for socket.c: control reverse lookup for every instance — Thomas Uehlinger <uehli@...>
Hi all
[#2357] Use the BasicSocket#do_not_reverse_lookup flag in Webrick — Thomas Uehlinger <uehli@...>
Hi
[#2367] Standard libraries — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
From ruby-dev summary:
Hi,
Hi,
By the way, this issue is about a matter of taste, so the debate is somewhat
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 02:58:22PM +0900, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, 8:18:32 PM, Mauricio wrote:
On Thursday 12 February 2004 04:37, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
On Friday, February 13, 2004, 12:44:15 AM, Sean wrote:
(Dave Thomas: there's a question for you in the second paragraph; if you're
[#2397] PATCH: deprecate cgi-lib, getopts, importenv, parsearg from standard library — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Index: cgi-lib.rb
* Gavin Sinclair (gsinclair@soyabean.com.au) wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, 11:39:37 PM, E wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
[#2422] Re: [ruby-cvs] ruby: * lib/ftools.rb: documented — "U.Nakamura" <usa@...>
Hello,
[#2449] make install not getting through rdoc phase — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Hi --
[#2465] PATCH: OpenStruct#initialize to yield self — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
This is a common approach I use to object initialization; I don't know
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:42:00 +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > As more general suggestion. Could 'new' yield the new object is a block
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:24:31 +0900, Carlos wrote:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On Feb 20, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
[#2494] rehash segfault — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
I don't have a lot of information on this bug at this point, but
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:30:54AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2504] foldl and foldr — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Sorry if I'm opening old wounds; I have a hard time believing that nobody has
Re: Standard libraries
(Dave Thomas: there's a question for you in the second paragraph; if you're not following this thread, would you please at least scan that paragraph? Thanks!) On Thursday 12 February 2004 09:59, Gavin Sinclair wrote: ... > > Basically, the code duplication that Hiroshi is complaining about is > > required for good documentation, because there's no other way of ... > Good points, but I don't see the light overall. > > Method documentation is neccesary to help people understand the code - > I agree. Without type information it can be hard to understand a > method at a glance. Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I was trying to say that Hiroshi doesn't like code duplication, but there is no way to avoid the kind of duplication he's complaining about because there's no other way to extract that information automatically. Ergo, if you want good documentation, you'll *have* to have a certain amount of duplication -- although, I wouldn't call it duplication; I'd call it documenting constraints. Even so, it *is* difficult to keep those constraints in sync. I remember having a discussion with Dave about the possibility of having rdoc extract constraints from the documentation and generating or running them in the form of unit tests. Dave, I'm a bit out of touch with what you're up to these days; have you given this any more thought? Also, since I'm a lazy cuss, does anybody know what the consequenses of having Ruby source files that consist of enormous amounts of comments is? I'm assuming that the parsing out of comments would add a not inconsiderate amount of time to the loading of files, but since that only happens once per run, can it be ignored? I'm just imagining some literate programming style that's 90% comments, and wondering what the overhead would be considering the dynamic nature of Ruby. -- ### SER ### Deutsch|Esperanto|Francaise|Linux|XML|Java|Ruby|Aikido ### http://www.germane-software.com/~ser jabber.com:ser ICQ:83578737 ### GPG: http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/Security/ser_public.gpg