[#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: Fibers in Ruby 1.9?
On 8/22/07, Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> wrote: > > Here's how fibers are described by MSDN: > > A fiber is a unit of execution that must be manually scheduled by the > application. Fibers run in the context of the threads that schedule > them. Each thread can schedule multiple fibers. In general, fibers do > not provide advantages over a well-designed multithreaded application. > However, using fibers can make it easier to port applications that were > designed to schedule their own threads. I'm not sure this is germane because I don't know if the Ruby Fiber class maps to the Microsoft object you describe, Dan. But MS added what they call "fibers" to the Win32 system about 10 years ago in order to facilitate porting of POSIX-thread libraries. At that time, you recall, thread architecture still wasn't a settled issue. MS's threads were (and are) analogous to Solaris lightweight processes. But Solaris and many other Posix thread libraries at the time had pure userland threads that were not kernel-scheduled entities. Since you could easily have tens of thousands of Solaris threads and only one or two hundred Windows threads in a single process, Microsoft felt competed against and they introduced this Fiber thing, which is somewhere in the middle between a full LWP and a full userland thread. From day 1, MS recommended that Fibers not be used in any new code.