[#10492] Ruby 1.8.6 preview3 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>

Hi,

26 messages 2007/03/04
[#10500] Re: Ruby 1.8.6 preview3 has been released — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...> 2007/03/05

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Akinori MUSHA wrote:

[#10507] Dynamic Array#join with block — <noreply@...>

Patches item #9055, was opened at 2007-03-05 19:57

12 messages 2007/03/05
[#10520] Re: [ ruby-Patches-9055 ] Dynamic Array#join with block — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/03/06

Hi,

[#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.

15 messages 2007/03/14
[#10596] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/14

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:15:57 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:

[#10597] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2007/03/14

> > The fix is in thread-mutex-remove_one.diff.

[#10598] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/14

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:04 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:

[#10599] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2007/03/14

On Wednesday 14 March 2007 17:29, MenTaLguY wrote:

[#10600] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/14

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:48:42 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:

[#10615] Multiton in standard library — TRANS <transfire@...>

Hi--

16 messages 2007/03/15
[#10619] Re: Multiton in standard library — Tom Pollard <tomp@...> 2007/03/16

[#10620] Re: Multiton in standard library — TRANS <transfire@...> 2007/03/16

On 3/15/07, Tom Pollard <tomp@earthlink.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

12 messages 2007/03/19
[#10647] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2007/03/19

noreply@rubyforge.org wrote:

[#10648] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2007/03/19

On Monday 19 March 2007 18:01, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

[#10651] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/03/19

Hi,

[#10665] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — "Chris Carter" <cdcarter@...> 2007/03/20

On 3/19/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#10712] Ruby Method Signatures (was Re: Multiton in standard library) — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>

On 3/19/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

10 messages 2007/03/21
[#10715] Re: Ruby Method Signatures (was Re: Multiton in standard library) — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2007/03/22

On 3/19/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#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 =

12 messages 2007/03/28
[#10799] Re: Virtual classes and 'real' classes -- why? — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/28

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:44:16 +0900, "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:

Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9462 ] BUGS in metaclasses inheritance

From: Charles Thornton <ceo@...>
Date: 2007-03-22 13:47:31 UTC
List: ruby-core #10733
noreply@rubyforge.org wrote:
> Bugs item #9462, was opened at 22/03/2007 11:19
> You can respond by visiting: 
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1698&aid=9462&group_id=426
>
> Category: Core
> Group: 1.8.x
> Status: Open
> Resolution: None
> Priority: 3
> Submitted By: Chauk-Mean P (chauk-mean)
> Assigned to: Nobody (None)
> Summary: BUGS in metaclasses inheritance
>
> Initial Comment:
>  
> The inheritance between metaclasses (noted between parentheses) should be as defined in the object.c source code (best seen with a fixed font) :
>
>  *                            +------------------+
>  *                            |                  |
>  *              Object---->(Object)              |
>  *               ^  ^        ^  ^                | 
>  *               |  |        |  |                |
>  *               |  |  +-----+  +---------+      |
>  *               |  |  |                  |      |
>  *               |  +-----------+         |      |
>  *               |     |        |         |      | 
>  *        +------+     |     Module--->(Module)  |
>  *        |            |        ^         ^      |
>  *   OtherClass-->(OtherClass)  |         |      |
>  *                              |         |      | 
>  *                            Class---->(Class)  |
>  *                              ^                |
>  *                              |                |
>  *                              +----------------+
>  *
>  
>   
This chart is essentially correct,  It simply leaves out a few 
implementation
details.
                 
(1)  "Object" super entry includes the ObjectSpace Module and reenters the
        chart the "Metaclass Module"
(2)   Both "Metaclass Object's" super and klass entries  return to "Class"
(3)  "MetaClass Module's" klass entry goes to "Class"
(4)  "MetaClass Class's" klass Entry goes to itself

I include two diagrams: 
       (1) export_fl.png  (Shows Complete Initial Structures)
       (2) export_db.png (Shows only OtherClass Hookup's)

         Chuck

Attachments (2)

0A_export_db.png (5.64 KB)
0A_export_db.png
0A_export_fl.png (35.7 KB)
0A_export_fl.png

In This Thread