[#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 Jul 24, 2007, at 19:53, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote: > This mail is for the topic '4. What $LOAD_PATH order should be?' > > Eric Hodel wrote: > >> 4-2. after requiring rubygems? > >> [-I, ENV_RUBYLIB, SITELIBDIR, RUBYLIBDIR, ., GEMs] or > >> [-I, ENV_RUBYLIB, SITELIBDIR, GEMs, RUBYLIBDIR, .] or > >> [-I, ENV_RUBYLIB, GEMs, SITELIBDIR, RUBYLIBDIR, .] > >> > >> - the first one is the current RubyGems behavior and it > should not be > >> changed as far as RubyGems team do not change it. the > behavior > >> must have been polished up in several years. > > > > Actually, the last one is current default: > > > > [-I, ENV_RUBYLIB, GEMs, SITELIBDIR, RUBYLIBDIR, .] > > > > This works best for developers who want to work on multiple gems at > > once, since they can use ruby -I to source the development version > > instead of the gem version. > > I may misunderstand custom_require.rb. I'm seeing custom_require.rb > revision 1285. > > # We replace Ruby's require with our own, which is capable of > # loading gems on demand. > # > # When you call <tt>require 'x'</tt>, this is what happens: > # * If the file can be loaded from the existing Ruby loadpath, it > # is. > # * Otherwise, installed gems are searched for a file that matches. > # If it's found in gem 'y', that gem is activated (added to the > # loadpath). > # > # The normal <tt>require</tt> functionality of returning false if > # that file has already been loaded is preserved. The work of adding the gem's require_paths to $LOAD_PATH happens in Gem::activate. > Custom 'require' at first try to load the specified feature name from; > [-I, ENV_RUBYLIB, SITELIBDIR, RUBYLIBDIR, .] > When it raises LoadError then add GEMs at the top of $LOAD_PATH and > try > to load the feature from; > [GEMs, -I, ENV_RUBYLIB, SITELIBDIR, RUBYLIBDIR, .] The behavior you describe is how 0.9.2 and previous worked. > I concaticated 2 arys and called Array#uniq (I hope Array#uniq > keeps its > order in the future, too). Is this wrong? I have experienced problems where gems were activated despite the files being present in the -I path. This is a developer-only problem. I believe my problems involved dependent gems. When RubyGems activates a gem, it also activates all its dependencies. With GEMs before -I, the gem version can get loaded instead of the -I version. With GEMs after -I, the -I version will always be preferred. I would need to experiment to reproduce the behavior I was seeing. > And when we call 'gem "soap4r"' explicitly, the $LOAD_PATH is; > [GEMs, -I, ENV_RUBYLIB, SITELIBDIR, RUBYLIBDIR, .] > isn't it? In 0.9.2, and earlier, this is correct. Now RubyGems looks for SITELIBDIR and inserts the gem's require_paths before it: $LOAD_PATH.insert($LOAD_PATH.index(sitelibdir, *require_paths)) See line 270-277 of lib/rubygems.rb. (Hrm, line 268 may be wrong.) > I should have wrongly summarized the problem. Can you sort out a > problem about $LOAD_PATH? > > >> - maybe I (NaHi) is the only person who have a very hard time > with > >> this behavior in soap4r-ML. it's because soap4r is the > only lib > >> which is gem-ed and located in RUBYLIBDIR. that's exactly > why I > >> run this thread. > > > > If soap4r were unbundled, would this matter anymore? (I forgot the > > details of the problems of soap4r in RUBYLIBDIR and soap4r gem.) > > No, it won't be the matter anymore. So the followings are just an > explanation what was happened. > > Say an user gets ruby/1.8.6 (based on soap4r-1.5.5). Then installs > soap4r-1.5.6 from tarball later (files are copied to site_lib dir). > Finally moves to RubyGems and installs soap4r-1.5.7 as a gem. > > soap4r-1.5.5 has a feature 'soap/a'. > soap4r-1.5.6 adds new feature 'soap/b'. > soap4r-1.5.7 adds another new feature 'soap/c'. > > soap/c depends on soap/b. soap/b depends on soap/a. > soap/a and soap/b are updated in each new version. > > /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/soap/a # soap4r-1.5.5 > /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/site_ruby/soap/a # soap4r-1.5.6 > /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/site_ruby/soap/b # soap4r-1.5.6 > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/soap4r-1.5.7/lib/soap/a # soap4r-1.5.7 > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/soap4r-1.5.7/lib/soap/b # soap4r-1.5.7 > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/soap4r-1.5.7/lib/soap/c # soap4r-1.5.7 > > Imagine what is loaded when the user runs 'require "soap/c"'. > Thankfully there's an easy answer how to avoid this; to load the > consistent feature versions, add 'gem "soap4r"' somewhere in a > program. On require 'soap/c' you should get 1.5.7 features. On require 'soap/b' then 'soap/c', problems may result without 'gem "soap4r"' first. > Once an user found this answer, it gets easier to track down a loader > problem in soap4r-ml. The rest I want to know is where 'gem "soap4r"' > should be added in RoR environment... (I've not yet been a RoR user.) config/environment.rb is the correct place in RoR. -- Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars