[#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: What libraries to be unbundled?
On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:39 , David Flanagan wrote: > I don't think that json should be unbundled. It is the interchange > format of choice for Ajax applications, and I think it is going to > see more and more use. It even has its own RFC! If anything, I > think that json support should be migrated into the core! I'm not going to repeat Jame's concerns, but I agree with him. What I don't really understand is the sentiment of migrating into core (read: translating to C). The lower you push the code: + the more bugs it'll have + the less malleable it is + the less it'll evolve By having it in standard lib, you keep it ruby, making my first two points moot. But you still have the problem of hindering evolution. By externalizing the library, it can be released independently of ruby and can mature at any pace it wants.