[#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: Multiton in standard library
On 3/16/07, Tom Pollard <tomp@earthlink.net> wrote: > Yes, I had seen that when I googled 'multiton'. As wikipedia > articles go, it doesn't look particularly authoritative; in > particular, it contains no references to places where the pattern has > been defined or used. Almost all of the other relevant hits I got > were Ruby usages, which is a bad sign, because I'm sure this is a > widely used pattern in many (most?) object-oriented languages. > > > And you are absolutely right. It is related to immutability --it is in > > fact how one generally goes about creating immutable objects. > > It seems surprising, then, that such a commonly used pattern doesn't > have an accepted name that you could have adopted. Why not call it > 'Immutable'? I see. Well it's not your most common pattern, clearly. And I have seen it called the Immutable pattern too. But for the module it doesn't make as much sense b/c the Multiton is not the only way to achieve Immutability. The Singleton Pattern an Immutable too. In fact the Multiton pattern is sometimes just referred to as the Modified Singleton pattern. > (I like the idea of having a mixin available in the standard library > to make this easy to use, I'm just not crazy about the name.) Completely understand. Just think Multiton is probably more technically correct name. T.