[#7043] RUBYOPT versioning? — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...>
Matz, others:
[#7050] RDoc patches for BigDecimal in Ruby CVS — mathew <meta@...>
Now that 1.8.4 is out and the initial flurry of problem reports has died
[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in
Hi,
On 05/01/06, nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@ge.com> wrote:
On 06/01/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 09/01/06, nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@ge.com> wrote:
[#7057] 64-bit Solaris READ_DATA_PENDING Revisited — Steven Lumos <steven@...>
[#7078] CRC - a proof-of-concept Ruby compiler — Anders Hkersten <chucky@...>
Hello everyone,
[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)
Hi,
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
Daniel Berger wrote:
*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, mathew wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, James Britt wrote:
Dean Wampler <deanwampler gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, mathew wrote:
[#7100] core dump with ruby 1.9.0 (2006-01-10) and bdb-0.5.8 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
I found following test script dumps core.
>>>>> "T" == Tanaka Akira <akr@m17n.org> writes:
In article <200601110905.k0B950Op001713@moulon.inra.fr>,
[#7109] Calling flock with block? — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Hi,
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Bertram Scharpf wrote:
[#7129] YAML.load({[]=>""}.to_yaml) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
I found that current YAML doesn't round trip {[]=>""}.
Hi.
Hi.
In article <20060115202203.D3624CA0.ocean@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp>,
[#7162] FileUtils.mv does not unlink source file when moving over filesystem boundary — Pav Lucistnik <pav@...>
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
[#7178] Add XHTML 1.0 Output Support to Ruby CGI — Paul Duncan <pabs@...>
The attached patch against Ruby 1.8.4 adds XHTML 1.0 output support to
[#7186] Ruby 1.9 and FHS — "Kirill A. Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...>
Build and install system changes:
[#7195] trouble due ruby redefining posix function eaccess — noreply@...
Bugs item #3317, was opened at 2006-01-24 15:33
[#7197] SSL-enabled DRb fds on SSLError? — ctm@... (Clifford T. Matthews)
Howdy,
On Jan 24, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Clifford T. Matthews wrote:
Patch worked fine against HEAD.
[#7203] bcc32's memory manager bug — "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
Hi.
[#7211] Some troubles with an embedded ruby interpreter — Matt Mower <matt.mower@...>
Hi folks,
[#7216] String#scan loops forefever if scanned string is modified inside block. — noreply@...
Bugs item #3329, was opened at 2006-01-26 10:55
[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Hello,
Sean E. Russell wrote:
>
On 1/28/06, Caleb Tennis <caleb@aei-tech.com> wrote:
On Saturday 28 January 2006 17:13, Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
Sean E. Russell wrote:
[#7249] PATCH: append option to sysread — Yohanes Santoso <ysantoso-rubycore@...>
[#7259] TCP/UDP server weird lags on 1.8.4 linux — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...>
Hi !
Re: RUBYOPT versioning?
> > I like this idea, but ... > > What happens if I have: > > RUBYOPT="-rubygems" > RUBYOPT18="-rubygems" > RUBYOPT19="" > > Will RUBYOPT18 take precedence over RUBYOPT? In Windows, RUBYOPT19 > being empty will have a similar effect to RUBYOPT19 not being defined. Not sure - I'm open to suggestion. At first glance, I think having them append would be the easiest solution. It doesn't seem to be an issue to pass redundant multiple -r statements to the same ruby instance. If it's in RUBYOPT, it gets used If it's in RUBYOPT18, it also gets used (if running Ruby 1.8). ... Caleb