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: Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Date: 2003-04-08 04:40:31 UTC

List: ruby-core #946

On Monday, April 7, 2003, at 11:01 PM, Michael Granger wrote:

> 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)
>
Except the two are really very different classes of things: are there 
any reasonable circumstances in which you'd want to allow either a 
Method or an UnboundMethod? In fact, this is actually an argument 
against the current hierarchy, as there are times when the interpreter 
allows either Proc or Method objects, but should explicitly _not_ allow 
UnboundMethods.

Cheers


Dave

Thread

In This Thread