[#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: Ruby 1.9/1.8 compatibility: String#lines

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2007-04-08 14:57:06 UTC
List: ruby-core #10897
Hi,

In message "Re: Ruby 1.9/1.8 compatibility: String#lines"
    on Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:11:23 +0900, murphy <murphy@rubychan.de> writes:
|
|> |It seems the most important change in 1.9, in terms of compatibility, is
|> |that String isn't Enumerable anymore. It breaks a lot of scripts on my
|> |system.
|> 
|> I put "lines" before calling "each".
|Maybe I didn't explain my problem well enough, sorry. If I do this, my
|script can run with Ruby 1.9, sure.
|
|But Ruby 1.8 says:
|
|  undefined method `lines' for "Foo\nbar":String (NoMethodError)
|
|so it won't run under both versions.
|
|I feel that many people (me, for a start) will want to make their
|libraries available for both versions in the next 2 or 3 years, if not
|longer.
|
|So I'm searching for a bullet-proof way to make String enumeration
|transparent from 1.8/1.9.
|
|The most simple way that comes to my mind is to add at least String#to_a
|to Ruby 1.9, with the Ruby 1.8 behavior. This would still force the
|people to adjust their libs, but at least they'll have an easy option
|not to break backwards compatibility instead.

I'd suggest adding lines method to return an array of lines in the
string, if it's not defined.

class String
  if defined? "".lines
    alias lines to_a
  end
end

If 1.8 maintainer agrees, I'd add the method to 1.8.

|I dare to say that otherwise, something like the "dirty fix" from my
|previous post is likely to show up in Rails 2.0, or whenever they decide
|to go 1.9 ;)
|
|> |I couldn't find an easy way to make scripts running under both 1.8 and 1.9:
|> |
|> |- String#each_line requires a block in 1.8, and writing each_line{}
|> |  isn't really beautiful.
|> 
|> If you want to iterate on lines in a string, each_line is the best
|> name to describe the behavior, I think.  YMMV.
|yes, it is, but the problem is that each_line doesn't provide the
|functionality of String#lines. it requires a block, and it doesn't
|return an enumerator. so using each_line doesn't do the trick either.
|
|by the way: I love the new Enumerators!

Thank you.  But you can't expect backward compatibility when you use
the new enumerators.  It will not be available during 1.8.

							matz.

In This Thread