[#11569] sprintf: Format specifier tokens aren't checked well enough — Florian Gross <florgro@...>
Hi,
Something seems to be broken for %u with negative bignums:
Hi,
[#11576] Array#delete is destructive, String#delete isn't — Florian Gross <florgro@...>
Hi,
[#11585] Array#values_at bug? — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>
a =3D [1,2,3,4]
[#11588] Timeout doesn't work correctly under windows when executing complex regexp. — "yuanyi zhang" <zhangyuanyi@...>
To repeat the problem, just execute the below code(I've run it with
Hi,
[#11597] Optimizing Symbol#to_proc — murphy <murphy@...>
Greetings to the list!
[#11600] Bug in Kernel#method objects that call super? — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
This seems very wrong to me. Calling through a method object should
[#11609] GetoptLong w/ DSL — TRANS <transfire@...>
Hi--
Hi,
On 7/8/07, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#11611] Import gem to Ruby 1.9 — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Hi,
On Jul 8, 2007, at 00:49, SASADA Koichi wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 7/17/07, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi <nakahiro@sarion.co.jp> wrote:
On 7/17/07, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 2007, at 01:26, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 7/18/07, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi <nakahiro@sarion.co.jp> wrote:
On 7/22/07, Chad Fowler <chad@chadfowler.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Jul 24, 2007, at 06:44, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sep 30, 2007, at 22:56 , NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
On Oct 1, 2007, at 09:57 , Eric Hodel wrote:
Hi,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Oct 13, 2007, at 02:00 , NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Oct 13, 2007, at 08:00 , NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Oct 15, 2007, at 07:14 , NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
On 10/17/07, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
Leonard Chin wrote:
On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:28 , Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Eric Hodel wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
On Oct 17, 2007, at 14:53 , Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Evan Phoenix wrote:
In article <4710890A.3020009@sarion.co.jp>,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <4718708D.3050001@sarion.co.jp>,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <471A1720.4080606@sarion.co.jp>,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <471CAFE0.2070104@sarion.co.jp>,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <471D4D1F.5050006@sarion.co.jp>,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <471D5665.5040209@sarion.co.jp>,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <471FF3B1.3060103@sarion.co.jp>,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <47200D74.6020202@sarion.co.jp>,
On Oct 13, 2007, at 01:24 , Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
In article <4722FEA4.6040509@sarion.co.jp>,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <472532B0.2060600@sarion.co.jp>,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <4726C4EF.7060605@sarion.co.jp>,
[#11635] to_str conversions and exceptions — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>
Silly question of the day:
[#11642] Re: Proposal: runtime-modifying Kernel methods should be keywords — "Marcel Molina Jr." <marcel@...>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:02:06PM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Calamitas wrote:
I was going to reply to this In a detailed manner, but I'm not. (I
Ryan Davis wrote:
Ryan Davis wrote:
On 18/07/07, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:
> PS: Incidentally... The comment on the blog entry you gave above
[#11645] Re: Proposal: runtime-modifying Kernel methods should be keywords — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Jul 13, 2007, at 2:09 AM, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
James Edward Gray II schrieb:
On Sep 10, 2007, at 11:19 PM, murphy wrote:
[#11648] Re: Proposal: runtime-modifying Kernel methods should be keywords — "John Lam" <jlam@...>
> 3. These methods are exactly the ones that complicate optimizing Ruby in
On 7/13/07, John Lam <jlam@iunknown.com> wrote:
TRANS wrote:
[#11673] Inheritable mixin — TRANS <transfire@...>
Concept for Ruby 2.0...
[#11691] rb_cstr_to_inum use of strtoul as an optimization has unfortunate side effects — Florian Gross <florgro@...>
Hi,
On another note, String#oct allows the base to be changed by a base
Hi,
[#11692] String#rindex(other) doesn't try to convert other via to_str — Florian Gross <florgro@...>
Hi,
[#11739] Re: Proposal: runtime-modifying Kernel methods should be keywords — Brent Roman <brent@...>
Just a follow up to on the idea of disallowing the
Brent Roman wrote:
On 17/07/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
[#11754] indentation / emacs woes — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
OK. Can someone give me the tweaks I need to make ruby source read
[#11756] threads and heavy io on osx and linux — "ara.t.howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...>
Hung on the 13th run.
[#11795] What libraries to be unbundled? — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I don't think that json should be unbundled. It is the interchange
On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:39 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
James Edward Gray II wrote:
On 7/24/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Oct 1, 2007, at 1:07 AM, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[#11821] Columnize, irb, and ruby-debug — "Rocky Bernstein" <rocky.bernstein@...>
I've been working on/with Kent SIbilev's ruby-debug. The current sources in
[#11826] Rdoc allowing arbitrary HTML — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>
Hi all
Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9
On 7/18/07, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi <nakahiro@sarion.co.jp> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > Thanks for your comments, TRANS, Ryan and Eric. Good to know you all > are positive about including RubyGems. > > TRANS and others, what libraries should be unbundled is the next (or the > next) topic. Wait for a while. > > Matz, Syouhei, there seems to be no barrier to add RubyGems into > ruby/1.9.1 so far. Don't you disagree we can continue the discussion > about bundling RubyGems with Ruby/1.9.1? > > Eric Hodel wrote: > >> > RubyGems is still missing one key feature, the ability to handle > >> > platform-specific gems. There may be a few other minor features that > >> > are missing, but I don't think RubyGems is ready for inclusion until > >> then. > >> > >> Are you and RubyGems maintainers negative to include RubyGems in > >> ruby/1.9.1 ? > > > > No, we'd really, really like RubyGems to be in core, but I'd really, > > really like to get the platform-specific gem handling working before it > > is in core. > > > > (The C stub to make ruby -r work with an in-core RubyGems should be easy > > to implement.) > > > > I'll have some free time coming up in August, so I may be able to get to > > it then. > > Thanks for your work always about ruby. > > In above which are you planning to implement 'platform-specific gem > handling' or 'C stub to make ruby -r work'? In the case of the latter > topic, ruby itself may be able to help it with adding common > 'require-hook', if someone can design such a feature. We should do > things step by step so some features like above can be delayed to 1.9.2 > though. > A built-in require hook would be excellent. I'm sure I'm going to raise some feathers here but if we're going to include RubyGems in the distribution, what is the general feeling about just including the RubyGems LOAD_PATH semantics as part of how #require naturally works? That would mean either of two things: 1) #require is enhanced in C to do the RubyGems logic of looking in the installed gems and adding to the LOAD_PATH + requiring on match or 2) require 'rubygems' by default. I'm not necessarily arguing for this. Just raising the idea. > / / / > > At first, let's list issues about bundling RubyGems to ruby/1.9.1. > > 1. Is platform-specific gem handling needed? > We need to at least clean up the way it's implemented now. It's not so much a few feature as an annoyance that needs to be fixed. > 2. Does RubyGems need some 'require-hook' feature to be added to > ruby/1.9.1? What's the requirements? > - hooks -r options > The problem with -r is that it doesn't delegate to #require. It runs the underlying C function with #require delegates to. So it's impossible in Ruby code to override the behavior of -r. > 3. What gem related commands should be install in BINDIR by the standard > installer? > gem, gemlock, gemri, gemwhich, gem_mirror, gem_server, > index_gem_repository.rb, update_rubygems > Nothing should be installed? (I mean 'ruby -rgem -e update gemname') > I think we need gem and gem_server at a minimum. gemwhich would actually be a nice general-purpose Ruby utility. It could be renamed rubywhich or rbwhich and installed. > 4. What $LOAD_PATH order should be? > 4-1. by default? > [RUBYLIBDIR, SITEDIR] > 4-2. after requiring rubygems? > [GEMs, RUBYLIBDIR, SITEDIR] or > [RUBYLIBDIR, GEMs, SITEDIR] or > [RUBYLIBDIR, SITEDIR, GEMs] > > 5. Where's the global repository for bundled rubygems? > Of course RubyForge should be pointed. Do we need some > 'rather official' repository at www.ruby-lang.org, too? > Personally I think RubyForge plus its mirrors are sufficient. We could do a cname for gems.ruby-lang.org perhaps? RubyForge is run by Ruby Central, so you could consider it to be 'rather official' already I suppose. > 6. What libraries does RubyGems depend on? > - existing bundled libraries > - new libraries > I forgot to mention that rake should be added to 1.9.1, too. > Off the top of the head, YAML/Syck, Webrick, the digest libraries, rbconfig, rdoc, thread, optparse, forwardable, time, openssl, open-uri, uri, net/http, fileutils, zlib, stringio, socket, tempfile, pathname Chad