[#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: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2007-06-29 04:47:56 UTC
List: ruby-core #11560
Hi,

In message "Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances"
    on Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:01:57 +0900, murphy <murphy@rubychan.de> writes:

|I would feel much better if I knew the reason for that. and please don't
|say it's for performance reasons...
|
|is there a design principle behind that? or some less obvious technical
|limitation?

If we allow users to intercept every object allocation, it would cause
serious trouble too easily, especially for built-in objects, such as
Strings or Arrays.  I consider Proc is one of them.

							matz.

In This Thread

Prev Next