[#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:

12 messages 2007/04/03

[#10933] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #10140, was opened at 2007-04-16 17:32

10 messages 2007/04/16
[#10934] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10140 ] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed — nobu@... 2007/04/16

Hi,

[#10960] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10140 ] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed — "Michal Suchanek" <hramrach@...> 2007/04/18

On 4/16/07, nobu@ruby-lang.org <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#10967] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10140 ] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/04/19

Hi,

[#10970] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10140 ] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed — "Michal Suchanek" <hramrach@...> 2007/04/19

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 ^

[#11003] miniruby loads extensions from already installed ruby — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #10303, was opened at 2007-04-23 10:44

10 messages 2007/04/23

[#11025] gsub with backslash characters in replacement string — "Adam Bozanich" <adam.boz@...>

Hello, spotted this one the other day:

10 messages 2007/04/26

Re: defined? operator changed in ruby 1.9: bug or feature?

From: David Flanagan <david@...>
Date: 2007-04-06 22:58:11 UTC
List: ruby-core #10886
Even after applying the patch, I see a difference between 1.8 and 1.9:

In 1.8, defined? 3+foo evaluates to nil when foo is undefined.

In the patched 1.9 snapshot, it evaluates to "method", even when foo is 
undefined.

I assume that this is a bug, and not an intentional change.

	David

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: defined? operator changed in ruby 1.9: bug or feature?"
>     on Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:45:51 +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> writes:
> 
> |At Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:51:10 +0900, David Flanagan wrote in [ruby-core:10867]:
> |> The behavior of the defined? operator is different in current ruby 1.9 
> |> snapshots than it is in 1.8.5.  Anyone know whether this is a bug or a 
> |> feature?
> |
> |Bug.
> 
> Can you commit?
> 
> 							matz.
> 


In This Thread