[#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: String.ord

From: Unknown <borg@...3.net>
Date: 2007-02-09 12:46:59 UTC
List: ruby-core #10250

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Steven Lumos wrote:

> There must be some kind of impedance mismatch going on here.  Is
> somebody really arguing that maybe it should NOT be possible to read
> binary data into a String and process individual bytes efficiently?
>
> Use cases?
>
>  - any kind of image processing
>  - implementing maybe half of all Internet protocols
>  - data compression
>  - error correction
>  - encryption
>  - Efficient XML Interchange [1]
>
> Stop thinking of strings like 'hello world' and start thinking of
> strings like TCP headers.  If anyone wants to argue that it should be
> arbitrarily impossible / inefficient / inconvenient to implement TCP
> in Ruby then I think the burden of proof should be on them.
>
> Maybe you mean to argue that String should not be used for non-textual
> data, even though it always has been before.  In that case maybe we
> need something like NArray in core.  (In core, not ext, please.)
>
> Steve
>
> [1] In fact, see http://www.w3.org/TR/xbc-use-cases/ for a whole
> stack of use cases.
>

I dont belive you ever used String class (C++) for Bitmap 
processing or TCP headers parsing. For Bitmap you usualy
have char pic[n] and for TCP some kind of struct.
Maybe indeed Ruby needs some kind of native char array class.

In This Thread