[#11852] continuations in Ruby 1.9? — David Flanagan <david@...>
In a comment on my recent blog post
On 8/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:
[#11860] Is this really what we want? — James Edward Gray II <james@...>
I'm investigating some recent breakage in FasterCSV and have tracking
Hi,
[#11871] ruby-openssl: == incorrect for X509-Subjects — Hadmut Danisch <hadmut@...>
Hi,
[#11876] priorities of newly-created threads — David Flanagan <david@...>
Hi,
Hi,
[#11886] Core dump with simple web scraper when run via cron — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
[#11890] Ruby and Solaris door library — "Hiro Asari" <asari.ruby@...>
Hi, there. This is my first patch against ruby. I think I followed
Hiro Asari wrote:
On 8/13/07, Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
On 8/15/07, Berger, Daniel <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> wrote:
[#11893] UDP sockets raise exception on MIPS platform — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
I am running ruby-1.8.6 under OpenWrt (*), which is a small MIPS platform
[#11894] IO#seek and whence problem — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
[#11899] pack/unpack 64bit Integers — Hadmut Danisch <hadmut@...>
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:50:01AM +0900, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:45:20PM +0900, Brian Candler wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 05:17:09PM +0200, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
Dumb question of the day: are Kernel#proc and Kernel#lambda identical?
> Dumb question of the day: are Kernel#proc and Kernel#lambda identical?
[#11900] missing bison, gperf not detected, do I need ruby to build ruby? — "Gabor Szabo" <szabgab@...>
Hi,
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> > It seems ./configure did not detect the fact that bison was missing from
[#11930] Bug in select? — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>
Hi
[#11945] Smoke testing Ruby — "Gabor Szabo" <szabgab@...>
Hi,
On 8/21/07, Gabor Szabo <szabgab@gmail.com> wrote:
Ruby used to have the Triple-R project based on Rubicon: see
Hugh Sasse wrote:
[#11947] Splatting MatchData bug? — Jos Backus <jos@...>
$ /tmp/ruby-1.9/bin/ruby -v
[#11948] Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — David Flanagan <david@...>
I just noticed that my ruby1.9 build of August 17th includes a Fiber
David Flanagan wrote:
On 8/22/07, Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:50:12 +0900, "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/22/07, MenTaLguY <mental@rydia.net> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:57:01 +0900, "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:
[#11960] coroutines with Fiber::Core — David Flanagan <david@...>
The following code works on Linux with today's snapshot of 1.9:
Hi,
[#11981] Inverse Square Root — "Dave Pederson" <dave.pederson@...>
Hello-
[#11988] String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — "Vincent Isambart" <vincent.isambart@...>
I saw that Matz just merged his M17N implementation in the trunk.
Hi,
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:54:20 +0200, Yukihiro Matsumoto
Hi,
On 8/25/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 8/25/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#12025] how to build ruby on vms — "toni" <toni@...>
Hi,
[#12040] Pragmas in Ruby 1.9 — David Flanagan <david@...>
Hi,
[#12042] Encodings of string literals; explicit codepoint escapes? — David Flanagan <david@...>
This message contains queries that probably only Matz can answer:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On 8/31/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Re: Thread.abort_on_exception= in Ruby 1.9
Replying to myself with more:
I've just checked out fresh Ruby 1.9 sources from svn and have confirmed
that this problem still exists in today's code.
Also: if you call join on a thread that exited with an exception, then
that exception starts propagating again in the calling thread. In Ruby
1.8, the backtrace includes the call to join. In Ruby 1.9, the
backtrace does not include the call to join. I think the Ruby 1.8
behavior is preferable, if it can be implemented in 1.9
David
David Flanagan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thread.abort_on_exception=true is not working the way I would expect it
> to in Ruby 1.9 (my build is from 7/24).
>
> Is this "just a bug" or a "not yet implemented" issue or is it a more
> fundamental problem exposed by YARV's use of native threads? That is,
> should we treate abort_on_exception= as a non-portable method useful
> only for implementations that use green threads?
>
> Here's the test code I'm using:
>
> Thread.abort_on_exception = true
>
> t = Thread.new {
> sleep 1
> raise "boom"
> }
>
> t.abort_on_exception = true
>
> sleep 2
> puts "done"
>
> It goes "boom" in Ruby 1.8:
>
> $ ruby -v boom.rb
> ruby 1.8.6 (2007-03-13 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]
> boom.rb:5: boom (RuntimeError)
> from boom.rb:3:in `initialize'
> from boom.rb:3:in `new'
> from boom.rb:3
>
> But it prints "done" in Ruby 1.9:
>
> $ ruby1.9 -v boom.rb
> ruby 1.9.0 (2007-07-24 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]
> done
>
>
>