[#10830] New kill_thread function in eval.c conflict with a BeOS system function — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #9736, was opened at 01/04/2007 16:20
[#10834] Hefty patch for mkmf.rb — <noreply@...>
Patches item #9762, was opened at 2007-04-02 09:55
[#10853] Why limit class def to a constant or colon node? — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
Is there a historical reason why I can't do something like these:
Hi,
On 4/3/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
[#10867] defined? operator changed in ruby 1.9: bug or feature? — David Flanagan <david@...>
The behavior of the defined? operator is different in current ruby 1.9
Hi,
[#10875] Ruby shouldn't process shebang! — "Kirill A. Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...>
> echo -e '#!test\nputs "test passed"' | ruby=20
On 4/5/07, Kirill A. Shutemov <k.shutemov@gmail.com> wrote:
[#10884] Ruby 1.9/1.8 compatibility: String#lines — murphy <murphy@...>
It seems the most important change in 1.9, in terms of compatibility, is
[#10907] install (/bin/install) path hardcoded at build — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #10004, was opened at 2007-04-10 13:21
[#10909] Turning off verbose output for mkmf — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
[#10923] block_given? => true in main(). — "Adam Bozanich" <adam.boz@...>
Hi all.
[#10933] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #10140, was opened at 2007-04-16 17:32
Hi,
On 4/16/07, nobu@ruby-lang.org <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 4/19/07, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:> Hi,>> At Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:21:44 +0900,> Michal Suchanek wrote in [ruby-core:10960]:> > Yes. And this should also apply to extensions. The mkmf tests are now> > fine but the extension is linked with -L/sw/lib before -L../..>> Indeed.>>> Index: configure.in> ===================================================================> --- configure.in (revision 12191)> +++ configure.in (working copy)> @@ -1385,5 +1385,4 @@ if test "$enable_rpath" = yes; then> fi>> -LDFLAGS="-L. $LDFLAGS"> AC_SUBST(ARCHFILE)>This would break the previous fix so I did not even try to apply this ^
Hi,
[#10944] IRHG - "Three Stuffing" — Charles Thornton <ceo@...>
Can a japanese speaker give a translation
[#10947] backwards compatibility for 'raise Interrupt' — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
** BEFORE:
Hi,
Hi,
[#10968] IRHG - Manuscript Hunt — Charles Thornton <ceo@...>
Does anyone know of a Text Copy (Not PDF) of this manuscript:
[#10981] ruby 1.9 crash on cygwin — "Anton Ivanov" <Anton.Ivanov@...>
Hi,
[#11003] miniruby loads extensions from already installed ruby — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #10303, was opened at 2007-04-23 10:44
Hi,
On 23/04/07, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 26/04/07, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
[#11012] Ruby 1.9: multiple splats on rvalues in parallel assignment — David Flanagan <david@...>
This has got to be a bug...
[#11025] gsub with backslash characters in replacement string — "Adam Bozanich" <adam.boz@...>
Hello, spotted this one the other day:
Hi,
On 4/26/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
On 4/26/07, Adam Bozanich <adam.boz@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/07, Marte Raphael Y. Soliza <myrtactle@gmail.com > wrote:
[#11029] Proc#arity regression or bug in RDoc — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:55:46PM +0900, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
Fwd: Bug in Bignum.to_s (1.8.6 only)
Begin forwarded message: > From: Daniel Azuma <dazuma@gmail.com> > Date: March 31, 2007 10:27:44 AM PDT > To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org (ruby-talk ML) > Subject: Bug in Bignum.to_s (1.8.6 only) > Reply-To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,ZSS_RUBY > autolearn=no version=2.64-zss_spam_1_1_1 > > Hello all, > > Just making a quick note of a bug we found in Bignum.to_s in Ruby > 1.8.6, > in case it burns anyone else. > > Examples: > > irb(main):001:0> 18446744073709551615.to_s(36) # should be > "3w5e11264sgsf" > => "w5e11264sgsf" > irb(main):002:0> -18446744073709551615.to_s(8) # should be > "-1777777777777777777777" > => "11777777777777777777777" > > The bug affects bases 8, 9, and 32-36 inclusive, over certain > ranges of > values depending on the base. Values immediately less than 2**64 > seem to > be particularly affected. For example, in base 36, all values from > 4738381338321616896 through 18446744073709551615 (which is 2**64-1) > will > fail. > > It manifests only in Ruby 1.8.6. Ruby 1.8.5 works correctly. (It > appears > that some optimization work went a little too far.) > > For anyone affected by this, I filed the bug on RubyForge, and > posted a > possible "works for me, but use at your own risk" fix to bignum.c: > > http://rubyforge.org/tracker/? > func=detail&aid=9410&group_id=426&atid=1698 > > Cheers, > Daniel Azuma > Chief Architect, Zoodango.com > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. >