[#11073] segfault printing instruction sequence for iterator — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #10527, was opened at 2007-05-02 14:42
Hi,
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 04:51:18PM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
This seems to make valgrind much happier.
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:14:35PM +0900, Paul Brannan wrote:
Hi,
Now 'a' shows up twice in the local table:
Hi,
[#11082] Understanding code: Kernel#require and blocks. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
I'm trying to debug a Rails application which complains about an
On 5/4/07, Hugh Sasse <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2007, George wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:18:19PM +0900, Hugh Sasse wrote:
[#11108] pattern for implementation-private constants? — David Flanagan <david@...>
Hi,
I believe there isn't a way, but I don't think it's really necessary. Just
[#11127] Bugs that can be closed — "Jano Svitok" <jan.svitok@...>
I propose closing these bugs as invalid:
[#11145] Rational comparison to 0 fails when denominator is != 1 — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #10739, was opened at 2007-05-10 22:06
Hi,
[#11169] Allow back reference with nest level in Oniguruma for Ruby again — =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Wolfgang_N=E1dasi-Donner?= <wonado@...>
Remark: I posted this text in comp.lang.ruby first, but Matz told me,
Does it make sense or is it required to write this as a RCR?
[#11176] FileUtils.rm_rf misfeature? — johan556@...
Hi!
[#11210] Pathname ascend and descend inclusive parameter — TRANS <transfire@...>
I would like to suggest that Pathname#ascend and Pathname#descend
[#11234] Planning to release 1.8.6 errata — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
Hi all.
On 25/05/07, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#11252] Init_stack and ruby_init_stack fail to reinit stack (threads problem?) — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #11134, was opened at 2007-05-25 12:14
Hi,
Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
[#11255] ruby_1_8_6 build problem (make install-doc) — johan556@...
Hi!
[#11271] providing better support through rubyforge tracker categories — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
I'm going to make more categories for the trackers (bugs and patches)
[#11367] BUG: next in lambda: 1.8.6 differs from 1.8.4 and 1.9.0 — David Flanagan <david@...>
A toplevel next statement in a lambda does not return a value in 1.8.6,
[#11368] $2000 USD Reward for help fixing Segmentation Fault in GC — Brent Roman <brent@...>
Hi Brent,
[ ruby-Bugs-6413 ] Some Time Constructors Fail to Call initialize
Bugs item #6413, was opened at 2006-10-31 13:44
You can respond by visiting:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1698&aid=6413&group_id=426
Category: Language / Runtime / Core Libraries
Group: 1.8.x
Status: Open
Resolution: Rejected
Priority: 3
Submitted By: David Wheeler (theory)
Assigned to: Shyouhei Urabe (shyouhei)
Summary: Some Time Constructors Fail to Call initialize
Initial Comment:
Some of the Time class constructor methods fail to call the initialize method in a subclass. For example, for this simple subclass:
class MyTime < Time
def initialize
puts "Hello world!"
end
end
When I test it with the constructor methods, none of these outputs the print statement:
* at
* parse
* httpdate
* rfc2822
* rfc822
* local
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Shyouhei Urabe (shyouhei)
Date: 2007-05-30 11:44
Message:
Subclassing is one thing, calling #initialize is another.
Subclassing is allowed since 1.8.6 (to fix [#6400]), and #initialize is still not called. Object initialization is not always done by #initialize.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Ryan Davis (zenspider)
Date: 2007-05-30 11:00
Message:
I couldn't find matz's rejection on the ruby-core archives on blade. I found this: http://marc.info/?l=ruby-core&m=116228212521416&w=1 which says it was accepted and fixed. It doesn't appear to be so:
>> MyTime.parse("2007-01-02").class
=> Time
So... _should_ this be rejected? I don't think there is a good reason not to allow Time to be subclassed. It is immutable which makes it a little special, but I don't see that affecting subclassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: David Wheeler (theory)
Date: 2007-05-30 08:47
Message:
Hrm. The rejection makes subclassing problematic. May I ask why?
Thanks!
David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Shyouhei Urabe (shyouhei)
Date: 2007-05-30 08:20
Message:
rejected by matz: [ruby-core:9361]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Ryan Davis (zenspider)
Date: 2006-11-02 16:11
Message:
This almost entirely goes through time_new_internal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1698&aid=6413&group_id=426