[#42] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...>

32 messages 2002/05/25
[#43] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/26

Hi,

[#45] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#46] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/26

Hi,

[#47] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#48] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "t" == ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:

[#49] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#50] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#51] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#52] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#53] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#54] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#55] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#56] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#57] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/28

Hi,

[#65] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/28

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#84] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/29

Hi,

[#92] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/29

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#67] The warns-a-thon continues... — Sean Chittenden <sean@...>

I'm feeling left out in this race to clobber warnings!!! Attached are

19 messages 2002/05/28

[#104] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

29 messages 2002/05/30
[#105] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/30

Hi,

[#125] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/04

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#126] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/04

Hi,

[#127] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/04

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#130] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/04

Hi,

[#132] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/05

Hi,

[#134] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/05

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops

From: ts <decoux@...>
Date: 2002-05-31 11:40:14 UTC
List: ruby-core #108
>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

n> I'm thinking it must be, no other way to solve [ruby-core:00100].

 It exist just a small problem with #defined? which will return
 "local-variable(in-block)" in this case.

 No good idea, how to fix this.

 I've a stupid suggestion, use "dynamic-variable" (it's a joke :-))))

 Just a question : for me, this name came from ruby-man-1.4

   http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/man-1.4/syntax.html#lvar

  "The local variables assigned first time in the blocks are only valid in
  that block. They are called `dynamic variables.'"

 What term was used in the Japanese version of this documentation ?


Guy Decoux

In This Thread