[#11073] segfault printing instruction sequence for iterator — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #10527, was opened at 2007-05-02 14:42

14 messages 2007/05/02
[#11142] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10527 ] segfault printing instruction sequence for iterator — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/05/10

Hi,

[#11188] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10527 ] segfault printing instruction sequence for iterator — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2007/05/16

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 04:51:18PM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#11234] Planning to release 1.8.6 errata — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hi all.

17 messages 2007/05/25

Re: pattern for implementation-private constants?

From: "Nathan Weizenbaum" <nex342@...>
Date: 2007-05-08 00:01:51 UTC
List: ruby-core #11109
I believe there isn't a way, but I don't think it's really necessary. Just
exclude the constants from the documentation, and no one will use them.

- Nathan

On 5/7/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As far as I can tell (and I hope I'm not overlooking something
> embarrassingly obvious) there is no way to define private constants in
> Ruby.  It seems to me that class implementations often benefit from the
> use of constants, but there is no need to expose many of these constants
> as part of the public API.
>
> Has the community settled on any kind of pattern for dealing with this?
>
> The only one I can think of is to define methods whose names begin with
> capital letters and therefore look like constants.  I don't like the
> performance implications of that, however.
>
> Thank you for your insight!
>
>         David Flanagan
>
>

In This Thread