[#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: multiple splats on rvalues in parallel assignment

From: David Flanagan <david@...>
Date: 2007-04-25 18:07:09 UTC
List: ruby-core #11021
I've confirmed this bug against the current trunk:

ruby1.9 -ve 'x,y,z=1,*[2],*[3]; p x,y,z'
ruby 1.9.0 (2007-04-25 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]
[1]
3
nil

My question (for Matz or Nobu?) is about the nature of the bug.  In 1.8, 
this code would be a syntax error, because multiple splats are not 
allowed on the right-hand side of a parallel assignment.  Has this 
changed in Ruby 1.9?  Is it supposed to be legal to have multiple 
splats?  Is the parser allowing something that it shouldn't?  Or is the 
VM mis-interpreting valid new syntax?

	David

David Flanagan wrote:
> This has got to be a bug...
> 
> ruby1.9 -ve 'x,y,z=1,*[2],*[3]; p x,y,z'
> ruby 1.9.0 (2007-02-06 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]
> [1]
> 3
> nil
> 
> Is Ruby 1.9 going to allow multiple splats on the right-hand side of a 
> parallel assignment expression?  If so, I assume that the above is not 
> how they are actually going to work, right?
> 
>     David
> 


In This Thread