[#927] UnboundMethod#to_proc — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I'm wondering what I can do with a Proc generated by
17 messages
2003/04/06
[#929] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
— "Chris Pine" <nemo@...>
2003/04/06
----- Original Message -----
[#934] Re: UnboundMethod#to_proc
— Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
2003/04/06
[#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
[#936] docs on implementation of ruby and/or ruby-gc ? — Ruben Vandeginste <Ruben.Vandeginste@...>
4 messages
2003/04/07
[#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:
[#973] problem with rb_rescue2() ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
5 messages
2003/04/19
Re: [patch] fileutils.rb - bug in 'rm_r'
From:
Minero Aoki <aamine@...>
Date:
2003-04-15 10:45:10 UTC
List:
ruby-core #963
Hi,
In mail "Re: [patch] fileutils.rb - bug in 'rm_r'"
matz@ruby-lang.org (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:
> |I believe there is a bug in the "FileUtils.rm_r" method.
> |The error I get if I do
> |seem wrong. Such an error (NoMethodError) should problably not be
> |seen by the user of the module. With the patch supplied below the
> |error is changed to
> |which is closer to the actual cause of the error (that the file
> |doesn't exist).
>
> Thank you. I will merge your fix.
I have merged his patch now.
Thanks anyway.
-- Minero Aoki