ruby-core

Mailing Lists

ruby-list (For Ruby users, JA) ruby-dev (For Ruby developers, JA) ruby-core (For Ruby developers, EN) ruby-talk (For Ruby users, EN)

[#922] Win32 popen3 — Richard Kilmer <rich@...>

I was wondering what the current status of getting popen3 working under

3 messages 2003/04/01

[#925] Re: Win32 popen3 — nobu.nokada@... 2003/04/02

Hi,

[#926] Re: Win32 popen3 — Richard Kilmer <rich@...> 2003/04/02

Thank you for your reply...

[#923] Possible inconsistency in IO — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

This is pretty trivial, but IO.new warns if it is passed a block, but

1 message 2003/04/01

[#924] Possible inconsistency in IO — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)

Hi,

1 message 2003/04/01

[#927] UnboundMethod#to_proc — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

I'm wondering what I can do with a Proc generated by

17 messages 2003/04/06

[#928] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/06

Hi,

[#931] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/04/06

[#929] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — "Chris Pine" <nemo@...> 2003/04/06

----- Original Message -----

[#930] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/06

Hi,

[#934] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/04/06

[#935] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/04/07

[#940] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — chr_news@... 2003/04/07

>

[#941] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/04/07

>> If they have diverging interfaces such that the contracts conflict

[#942] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/08

Hi,

[#944] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — Michael Granger <ged@...> 2003/04/08

On Monday, Apr 7, 2003, at 20:44 America/Denver, Yukihiro Matsumoto

[#946] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/04/08

[#950] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — Michael Granger <ged@...> 2003/04/08

On Monday, Apr 7, 2003, at 22:40 America/Denver, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#943] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/04/08

[#947] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/08

Hi,

[#932] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — "Chris Pine" <nemo@...> 2003/04/06

----- Original Message -----

[#933] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/06

Hi,

[#936] docs on implementation of ruby and/or ruby-gc ? — Ruben Vandeginste <Ruben.Vandeginste@...>

4 messages 2003/04/07

[#937] Re: docs on implementation of ruby and/or ruby-gc ? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/07

Hi,

[#938] Re: docs on implementation of ruby and/or ruby-gc ? — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...> 2003/04/07

On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 06:24:46PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#939] Re: docs on implementation of ruby and/or ruby-gc ? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/07

Hi,

[#945] Is this an intended change in string interpolation — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

In the latest CVS:

3 messages 2003/04/08

[#949] Re: Is this an intended change in string interpolation — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/08

Hi,

[#948] Re: Is this an intended change in string interpolation — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2003/04/08

On Tuesday, 8 April 2003 at 13:37:29 +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#951] Creating thread safe classes for Ruby — Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@...>

Hello,

2 messages 2003/04/08

[#952] Re: Creating thread safe classes for Ruby — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/08

Hi,

[#953] Unbound methods (again) — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

1 message 2003/04/08

[#954] Patch for UnboundMethod in define_method — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Attached is a trivial patch to allow UnboundMethods as a parameters to

2 messages 2003/04/09

[#955] Re: Patch for UnboundMethod in define_method — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/09

Hi,

[#956] String.allocate etc... — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

2 messages 2003/04/11

[#957] Re: String.allocate etc... — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/04/11

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 22:56:53 +0900

[#958] fileutils.rb - bug in 'rm_r' — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>

3 messages 2003/04/14

[#962] Re: [patch] fileutils.rb - bug in 'rm_r' — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/15

Hi,

[#963] Re: [patch] fileutils.rb - bug in 'rm_r' — Minero Aoki <aamine@...> 2003/04/15

Hi,

[#959] Flex reentrant? — Michal Rokos <michal@...>

Hi,

3 messages 2003/04/15

[#960] Re: Flex reentrant? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/15

Hi,

[#961] Re: Flex reentrant? — Michal Rokos <michal@...> 2003/04/15

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#964] Range in logical context — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

If I run

7 messages 2003/04/16

[#965] Re: Range in logical context — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...> 2003/04/16

On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 06:10:40AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#966] Re: Range in logical context — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/04/16

On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 04:46 PM, Mauricio Fern疣dez wrote:

[#967] Re: Range in logical context — nobu.nokada@... 2003/04/17

Hi,

[#968] Re: Range in logical context — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/17

Hi,

[#969] Re: Range in logical context — nobu.nokada@... 2003/04/17

Hi,

[#970] Re: Range in logical context — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/17

Hi,

[#971] Regexp quoting (again) — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

2 messages 2003/04/17

[#972] Re: Regexp quoting (again) — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/04/17

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:12:59 +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#973] problem with rb_rescue2() ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>

5 messages 2003/04/19

[#974] Re: problem with rb_rescue2() ? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/19

Hi,

[#975] Re: problem with rb_rescue2() ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/04/19

[#976] Re: problem with rb_rescue2() ? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/19

Hi,

[#977] Re: problem with rb_rescue2() ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/04/19

[#978] Cleaning up... — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

6 messages 2003/04/22

[#979] Re: Cleaning up... — Mark Wilson <mwilson13@...> 2003/04/23

[#992] Re: Cleaning up... — Ian Macdonald <ian@...> 2003/04/25

On Wed 23 Apr 2003 at 08:02:09 +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#993] Re: Cleaning up... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/28

Hi,

[#994] Re: Cleaning up... — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/05/01

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#997] Re: Cleaning up... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/05/01

Hi,

[#980] Possible big in ipaddr.rb — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

The method #include? in IPAddr looks like:

3 messages 2003/04/23

[#981] Re: Possible big in ipaddr.rb — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/23

Hi,

[#989] Re: Possible big in ipaddr.rb — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...> 2003/04/24

At Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:18:49 +0900,

[#982] IPAddr patch — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

It looks like I can't commit patches to /src/ruby, so I'm posting them

3 messages 2003/04/23

[#983] Re: IPAddr patch — nobu.nokada@... 2003/04/23

Hi,

[#984] Re: IPAddr patch — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/04/24

nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

[#985] 0 prefix in floats ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>

2 messages 2003/04/24

[#986] Re: 0 prefix in floats ? — Chris Ross <chris@...> 2003/04/24

I suspect it's to remove ambiguity so the .5 can't be confused by

[#987] IPaddr design — "Stephane D'Alu" <Stephane.DAlu@...>

Hello

2 messages 2003/04/24

[#988] Re: IPaddr design — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/04/24

Hi,

[#990] Re: IPaddr design — Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@...>

Hi,

2 messages 2003/04/24

[#991] Re: IPaddr design — "Stephane D'Alu" <sdalu@...> 2003/04/24

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 03:43:11AM +0900, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:

Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc

From: Michael Granger <ged@...>

Date: 2003-04-08 04:01:28 UTC

List: ruby-core #944

On Monday, Apr 7, 2003, at 20:44 America/Denver, Yukihiro Matsumoto 
wrote:

> In message "Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc"
>     on 03/04/08, Dave Thomas <dave@thomases.com> writes:
>
> |Not necessarily: I don't believe that Unbound should inherit from
> |Method: I think they should both inherit from Object. All they really
> |share is 'arity', and Proc has that too.
>
> Not necessarily indeed.  It's just because implementation
> convenience.
>

It's also convenient when you are testing for a method object and you 
don't care whether it's bound or unbound:

   obj.is_a?( Method )

whereas if one weren't a generalization of the other, you'd have to do:

   obj.is_a?(Method) || obj.is_a?(UnboundMethod)

which seems a bit silly to me.

I also disagree with sharing #arity between unrelated Method and 
UnboundMethod classes as a mixin. A mixin, as I understand them anyway, 
must be abstractable in a way that the arity of a method doesn't seem 
to be; the #arity operation is not incidental to either class, it's 
inherent to them.

--
Michael Granger <ged@FaerieMUD.org>
Rubymage/Believer/Architect
The FaerieMUD Consortium

Thread

In This Thread