[#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: "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2007-04-06 23:28:25 UTC
List: ruby-core #10887
On 4/5/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> 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?

I found this a bit strange also:

rick@frodo:/public/rubyscripts$ ruby -e 'print defined? a,"\n";print a,"\n"'
nil
-e:1: undefined local variable or method `a' for main:Object (NameError)
rick@frodo:/public/rubyscripts$ ruby -e 'print defined? a=1,"\n";print a,"\n"'
assignment
nil
rick@frodo:/public/rubyscripts$

So even in 1.8, although the define? a=1 isn't performing the
assignment, it IS defining the variable.

Is this the way it should work?

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

In This Thread