[#10467] Module re-inclusion in 1.9 vs 1.8 — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>
Some months ago I noticed that the semantics of module inclusion had
[#10468] Floats that are NaN have strange behavior — Jonas Kongslund <jonas@...>
Hi
[#10478] Plan to add ext/digest/lib/digest/hmac.rb to 1.8.6 or 1.8.7? — "Zev Blut" <rubyzbibd@...>
Hello,
[#10480] Ruby 1.8.6 delayed for seven days — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
I am afraid I have to announce that Ruby 1.8.6 final release will be
[#10490] Join with block — "Farrel Lifson" <farrel.lifson@...>
This patch adds the ability to give the Array#join method a block like so
[#10492] Ruby 1.8.6 preview3 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Hi,
Akinori MUSHA wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Akinori MUSHA wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 04:16, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 10:46, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 12:07, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Eric Hodel wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
Hi,
[#10494] make check for 1.8.6-preview3: TestDBM: DBMError: dbm_store failed — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #9031, was opened at 2007-03-04 12:57
[#10507] Dynamic Array#join with block — <noreply@...>
Patches item #9055, was opened at 2007-03-05 19:57
Hi,
On 06/03/07, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
On 06/03/07, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 09/03/07, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#10536] DRb freezes YARV? — "Meinrad Recheis" <meinrad.recheis@...>
dear all,
[#10552] ruby 1.8.5p12: default IO object for gets() ? — Unknown <borg@...3.net>
Hello..
[#10563] Ruby 1.8.6 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Hello,
[#10575] 'rescue' with non-exception class — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
I was just caught out by this odd behaviour: a 'rescue' clause doesn't
[#10580] Kernel#exec on OSX — "Kent Sibilev" <ksruby@...>
Does anyone know how to explain this:
[#10585] Bugfix: Extension Compile Error with 1.8.6 — Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@...>
Hello,
[#10594] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org>
In ext/thread/thread.c, remove_one leaves the list in an inconsistent state.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:15:57 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
> > The fix is in thread-mutex-remove_one.diff.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:04 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 17:29, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:48:42 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
Here the next one (hopefully the last)
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:11:41 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:07:30 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
At Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:18:19 +0900,
> Which set of patches do you think should be committed? The former to
[#10615] Multiton in standard library — TRANS <transfire@...>
Hi--
On 3/15/07, Tom Pollard <tomp@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:46 PM, TRANS wrote:
On 3/16/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
[#10646] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #9376, was opened at 2007-03-19 15:58
noreply@rubyforge.org wrote:
On Monday 19 March 2007 18:01, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
Hi,
On 3/19/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
> |But what if that singleton class just contained a method that allowed
Hi,
[#10701] Discrepancy between GetoptLong.new and documentation — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #8384, was opened at 2007-02-02 10:06
> -----Original Message-----
[#10705] Google Summer of Code proposal. — "Pedro Del Gallego" <pedro.delgallego@...>
Hi,
On 3/21/07, Pedro Del Gallego <pedro.delgallego@gmail.com> wrote:
[#10711] Re: Extensions to ipaddr.rb — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
> Is this your intention?
[#10712] Ruby Method Signatures (was Re: Multiton in standard library) — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>
On 3/19/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/19/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/21/07, Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> wrote:
On 3/21/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 10:26:38PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
On 3/22/07, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote:
On 3/23/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
[#10729] BUGS in metaclasses inheritance — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #9462, was opened at 22/03/2007 11:19
noreply@rubyforge.org wrote:
[#10746] sub-process with Test::Unit does not exit error code as expected — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #9300, was opened at 2007-03-15 03:35
Hi,
[#10749] class_extension — TRANS <transfire@...>
I'm just following up to find out the status of consideration for
[#10768] Lastest Version IRHG - Technical Review Requested — Charles Thornton <ceo@...>
TO: CORE
[#10798] Virtual classes and 'real' classes -- why? — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>
I was wondering if someone could help me understand why there's a parallel =
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:44:16 +0900, "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:
Thanks for sharing the eigenclass hack.
John Lam (CLR) wrote:
[#10818] Bug in Net::HTTP#keep_alive? — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>
Sometimes Apache will send a connection header like this:
Should I submit a bug for this? I guess I'm not sure what proper
[#10826] Comparable module and values of <=> operator — David Flanagan <david@...>
The rdoc for the Comparable module and its methods consistently indicate
Replying to my own post...
I think there's nothing wrong with the implementation and documentation.
Re: [PATCH] Join with block
Quoting farrel.lifson@gmail.com, on Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 07:37:37AM +0900:
> On 05/03/07, Steven Lumos <steven@lumos.us> wrote:
> >Why bother passing sep to the block?
>
> If the block is a pre-existing proc object there's no guarantee it
> will have access to whatever is passed to the join method as the
> separator.
I think its strange, too, if your join needs something known locally,
and uses a pre-existing block, its easy to handle:
[1,2,3].join{|a,b| block.call(' -- ', a, b)}
but passing an arg to join which is then passed unchanged to the block
seems odd, the nice thing about blocks is they are part of the calling
environment, its there for free.
Sam