[#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:

Ruby 1.9: Why the change to the return values of #instance_variables?

From: "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...>
Date: 2007-02-03 20:04:04 UTC
List: ruby-core #10185
I have been preparing a release of Transaction::Simple 1.4 and want to
make it work with Ruby 1.9, so I've been using today's snapshot to run
the tests. A few things seem to be a bit more thorough than previously
done, but one change I don't understand -- and it probably happened a
while ago while I was busy getting married and all that.

I have some code like:

  if rr.instance_variables.include?("@__transaction_checkpoint__")

This works beautifully on 1.8; it fails miserably on 1.9. The version
that fixes it on 1.9 fails just as miserably on 1.8:

  if rr.instance_variables.include?(:@__transaction_checkpoint__)

Now, I don't *really* need this particular test except to dramatically
reduce the number of warnings generated by Transaction::Simple; what
I'm curious about is why the change was made. Alternatively, without
doing a check on RUBY_VERSION, how can I have one test that works in
both Ruby 1.8 and Ruby 1.9?

-austin
P.S. Matz, I will be posting afterwards to my blog a bit further about
the transaction stuff that we talked about at RubyConf. Is the "ugly
hack" that you implemented going to remain, or are we going to have
something a little nicer? There's also some stuff that Pit Capitain
suggested to me that fixes the problem for up to 90% of cases
(excepting where custom Marshaling is required and other
circumstances).
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin@zieglers.ca

In This Thread

Prev Next