[#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: Cleaning up...
From:
Mark Wilson <mwilson13@...>
Date:
2003-04-23 01:30:48 UTC
List:
ruby-core #979
On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 07:02 PM, Dave Thomas wrote: > [snip] > As people contribute additional library code to the standard > distribution, we end up in the situation where we have a lot of > duplication [snip] > I propose that we create a subdirectory of lib called lib/old, and > move all the obsolete library files in to it. [snip] I agree. Neatness counts. I also like the idea of "fat" distributions, with clearly delineated distinctions between main Ruby and "was (and might again be)" Ruby.