[#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 !
Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings)
Daniel Berger wrote: > I agree. It looks like mathn, rational, complex and matrix could all > use some cleanup. Unfortunately, without any unit tests (that I could > find, either in the ruby distro or rubicon), I'm afraid to touch > anything. Actually, it's worse than that. There's no documentation of what functionality is intentionally supported, which precludes effective refactoring. I know this is going to be controversial, but I'd like to float the idea that nothing new should be accepted into the standard library unless its API is documented. Otherwise Ruby will just accrete more and more of these libraries that are undoubtedly useful, but nobody can touch to improve--'csv' being an example. And we'll have more problems like the change to the standard library that broke Rake. The documentation for a library is the design contract between the person writing the code and the people using it. At a minimum it should lay out what behavior is supported, and what is mere accident. Without that knowledge, you basically can't refactor, and any change you make that breaks applications generates a lot of unnecessarily heated discussion along the lines of "but it worked in 1.8.3!" The recent discussion of Mail#to_s is another example of the problem. The current behavior was clearly sub-optimal, but nobody knew what the supported behavior was supposed to be, so discussion of improving it got nowhere. Then there was the change to behavior of rb_respond_to. People had started to rely on 'accidental' behavior, because there's this culture in Ruby of not documenting whether something is publically supported or not. mathew