[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>

Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in

17 messages 2006/01/05
[#7058] Re: More on VC++ 2005 — nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...> 2006/01/06

Hi,

[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)

Hi,

22 messages 2006/01/10
[#7097] Re: mathn: ugly warnings — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...> 2006/01/10

Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#7098] Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/10

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#7118] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/12

*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:

[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>

Hello,

23 messages 2006/01/28
[#7228] Re: Question about massive API changes — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...> 2006/01/28

>

Re: Calling flock with block?

From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2006-01-11 23:30:10 UTC
List: ruby-core #7112
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Bertram Scharpf wrote:
> 
>>  File.open "somefile", "a" do |f|
>>    f.flock File::LOCK_EX do
>>      f.print ...
>>    end
>>  end
> 
> 
> class File
>   def blocklock(x)
>     flock x
>     yield
>   ensure
>     flock LOCK_UN
>   end
> end

It seems likely to me that a lot of people have implemented exactly that
same piece of code, probably more than once. The #flock method doesn't
have a block_given case already, and it's pretty unambiguous how it
should handle that case...

-- 
      vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407

In This Thread