[#10193] String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...>

Hi,

41 messages 2007/02/05
[#10197] Re: String.ord — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/02/06

Hi,

[#10198] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10199] Re: String.ord — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/02/06

David Flanagan wrote:

[#10200] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#10208] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10213] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10215] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10216] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/07

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10288] Socket library should support abstract unix sockets — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8597, was opened at 2007-02-13 16:10

12 messages 2007/02/13

[#10321] File.basename fails on Windows root paths — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8676, was opened at 2007-02-15 10:09

11 messages 2007/02/15

[#10323] Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

Some of the Ruby code used by TextMate makes use of xmlrpc/

31 messages 2007/02/15
[#10324] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2007/02/15

> -----Original Message-----

[#10326] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/15

On Feb 15, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Berger, Daniel wrote:

[#10342] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

While I am complaining about xmlrpc, we have another issue. It's

[#10343] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — Alex Young <alex@...> 2007/02/16

James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#10344] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

On Feb 16, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Alex Young wrote:

Re: Collaborative Ruby Language Specification

From: Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
Date: 2007-02-01 08:14:10 UTC
List: ruby-core #10153
gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
> I find it somewhat disconcerting that Ruby might be hobbled by VMs 
> designed for other languages.  I've been playing around with 
> continuations to simplify web programming (like Iowa) and it is a really 
> nice solution.

Well, I'm not suggesting that Ruby itself should be held back by other 
VMs that can't support certain features, but any developers using those 
features will have to weigh their utility against the fact that they 
won't be able to run on some of the other implementations. If you don't 
care about the other implementations and the benefits they might bring, 
that ought to work out fine. If you do care about the other 
implementations, you'll choose not to use those features.

Already people have to make this choice anyway...symlinks or not, fork 
or not, check platform and alter behavior accordingly or not. The 
alternative implementations will just add a few more items to consider. 
It may also start to work the other way too...rely on native threading 
(JRuby) or not, rely on native unicode (JRuby) or not, rely on C or Java 
extensions or not. Choices always.

- Charlie

In This Thread