[#9869] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #7680, was opened at 2007-01-08 22:53

34 messages 2007/01/08
[#9871] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/08

Hi,

[#9872] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Evan Webb <evan@...> 2007/01/08

On Jan 8, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#9873] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/08

Hi,

[#9876] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — dblack@... 2007/01/09

Hi --

[#9878] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9879] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — dblack@... 2007/01/09

Hi --

[#9880] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9882] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2007/01/09

[#9885] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9887] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2007/01/09

[#9888] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/09

Evan Phoenix wrote:

[#9892] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9899] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/10

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#9904] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/10

Hi,

[#9960] Scoping and locating definitions — Jos Backus <jos@...>

Consider the following:

17 messages 2007/01/18
[#9964] Re: Scoping and locating definitions — Pit Capitain <pit@...> 2007/01/19

Jos Backus schrieb:

[#9966] Re: Scoping and locating definitions — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2007/01/19

On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 06:40:03PM +0900, Pit Capitain wrote:

[#9972] Re: Scoping and locating definitions — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2007/01/19

On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 02:18:19AM +0900, Jos Backus wrote:

[#9996] new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

Hi,

50 messages 2007/01/23
[#10002] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@...42.com> 2007/01/23

SASADA Koichi wrote:

[#10003] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/23

Hi,

[#10004] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/01/23

On Jan 23, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10017] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@...42.com> 2007/01/24

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10018] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/24

Hi,

[#10024] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@...42.com> 2007/01/24

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10027] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/24

Hi,

[#10048] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2007/01/25

The more this discussion goes on, the more I worry that Joe Q Public

[#10019] stable branch policy & schedule for 1.8.6 — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>

Core developers,

29 messages 2007/01/24
[#10021] Re: stable branch policy & schedule for 1.8.6 — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/24

Akinori MUSHA wrote:

[#10032] Re: stable branch policy & schedule for 1.8.6 — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...> 2007/01/24

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#10085] Collaborative Ruby Language Specification — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>

Hi Everyone,

36 messages 2007/01/28
[#10108] Re: Collaborative Ruby Language Specification — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/29

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

[#10112] Re: Collaborative Ruby Language Specification — "Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel@...> 2007/01/30

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#10114] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — <noreply@...>

Patches item #8309, was opened at 2007-01-30 15:25

16 messages 2007/01/30
[#10131] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/31

[#10132] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Paulo Kh <paulo.koch@...> 2007/01/31

On 2007/01/31, at 06:07, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10137] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/31

Hi,

[#10139] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2007/01/31

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:19:34AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10143] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/02/01

Hi,

Re: Collaborative Ruby Language Specification

From: "Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel@...>
Date: 2007-01-30 16:54:43 UTC
List: ruby-core #10122
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Brian.

> Continuations are not being "removed." At least the removal hasn't
> been announced if there is going to be one. The only thing people keep
> mistaking this for is that YARV did not support continuations at merge
> time. They might be added in if code is volunteered. Considering this
> context, they weren't removed as much as they were _never_added_.

On http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/86862#161750, Matz says:

* Ruby 1.9.1 will not have continuation, since they have lowest
  priority and are difficult to implement efficiently.

* no promise (neither positive nor negative) on continuation for
  1.9.2 or 2.0, for exact same reason above.

Don't know if my interpretation is wrong also, but seems more a negative than a
positive thing about continuations on Ruby 1.9.x >, if, as you said, no
volunteered code is added.

- --
Eust痃uio "TaQ" Rangel
http://eustaquiorangel.com

"Live as if you will die tomorrow, and learn as if you will live for ever."
Mahatma Gandhi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFv3hMb6UiZnhJiLsRAu2dAKCGc4tGgF+cp6YS0tKU9oJtFJ6k8ACfdtU6
xQTaPJ4Xf086l2vlV51GWrc=
=VZ3G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In This Thread