[#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: Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes
On 1/30/06, Jacob Fugal <lukfugl@gmail.com> wrote: > Amen. It's already been determined that 2.0 will be a non-compatible > release. Anyone that upgrades from 1.8.x to 2.0 will have to fix > *something*, and this can be one of those somethings. If you document > the breakage in BIG RED LETTERS, I don't see any problem with > including the optimized version alone in 2.0 (and by extension in 1.9, > which is the development branch for 2.0). > > As far as making it available for 1.8.x, just create a shim-patch in > the form of a gem or whatever other form of package you want. Early > adopters who can't run 1.9 for some other reason can apply the patch > and be ahead of the game for the ->2.0 upgrade where they'll only need > to remove the require line for the patch. Sean- As somebody who has made frequent use of REXML, I'd have to agree with Jacob here. I think REXML is fantastic and the idea of having a more memory efficient version of it sounds like a great idea. That being said I don't see why you need to concern yourself with trying to make it compatible when it's going into Ruby 2.0 and as everybody already knows, so much is going to change in that release of Ruby that's going to break older programs... people are just going to have to deal with it. Last I heard block semantics were totally getting twiddled with... which would mean that everything I have that uses REXML will probably need to get changed right away, as I find myself frequently using the REXML::XPath.each calls. Break away, but maybe release the new version early so those of us that are aware can try to fix ASAP. And to totally go out of thread order here, I believe what mathew was suggesting with an API fascade was to create a wrapping layer around the new APIs that behaved like the old APIs. Depending on how sweeping your API changes are, it might not be too difficult to do that using unit tests that have already been developed. Just a thought... Cheers, Ben