[#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: load behavior

From: "Nasir Khan" <rubylearner@...>
Date: 2007-04-17 06:23:28 UTC
List: ruby-core #10942
IMHO it is definitely not a bug as Kernel.require would just load the
library at the top level as there is no wrap=false equivalent in
require, further the doc says "The name of the loaded feature is added
to the array in $" "

So there is no ambiguity in what it does here.

Kernel.load with wrap=true again does what it says in the doc "loaded
script will be executed under an anonymous module"

which is equivalent to -

mod = Module.new
mod.module_eval("require '2.rb'; X=1")   => true
D                                                       => bar
X                                                        => NameError:
uninitialized constant X

Which brings back to require behavior.

Now you could argue that this may appear to be un-intuitive, but
that's a different issue.

- Nasir


On 4/16/07, John Lam (CLR) <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Consider this code:
>
>
>
> load('1.rb', true)
>
> puts C   # error expected
>
> puts D  # expecting this to be an error as well
>
>
>
> 1.rb:
>
>
>
> C = "foo"
>
> require '2.rb"
>
>
>
> 2.rb:
>
>
>
> D = "bar"
>
>
>
> Is this a bug (we're using 1.8.5)?
>
>
>
> From the docs: "If the optional wrap parameter is true, then the loaded script will be executed under an anonymous module, protecting the calling program's global namespace."
>
>
>
> Secondary question, should require '2.rb' respect the true flag from the original load()?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -John
>
>

In This Thread