[#11439] comments needed for Random class — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

15 messages 2007/06/12

[#11450] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — David Flanagan <david@...>

This is a late response to the very long thread that started back in

17 messages 2007/06/13

[#11482] Ruby Changes Its Mind About Non-Word Characters — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

Does this look like a bug to anyone else?

10 messages 2007/06/16

[#11505] Question about the patchlevel release cycle — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org>

1.8.6 thread support was broken in bad ways. It stayed for three months

20 messages 2007/06/20
[#11512] Re: Question about the patchlevel release cycle — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2007/06/20

Hi, I'm the 1.8.6 branch manager.

[#11543] Re: Apple reportedly to ship with ruby 1.8.6-p36 unless informed what to patch — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:47 PM, Bill Kelly wrote:

10 messages 2007/06/27

Re: BUG: next in lambda: 1.8.6 differs from 1.8.4 and 1.9.0

From: David Flanagan <david@...>
Date: 2007-06-01 18:05:22 UTC
List: ruby-core #11389
Nobu,

I don't understand.  Does the latest 1.8.6 return the same result as I 
reported, or does it return the same result as 1.8.4 and 1.9.0?

	David

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> At Thu, 31 May 2007 07:28:59 +0900,
> David Flanagan wrote in [ruby-core:11367]:
>> A toplevel next statement in a lambda does not return a value in 1.8.6, 
>> but it does in both 1.8.4 and today's 1.9.0 build.
> 
> The latest 1.8.6 in SVN returns the same result.
> 


In This Thread