[#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: Whatever happened to have_const?
Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:29:57 +0900,
> Daniel Berger wrote in [ruby-core:12027]:
>> What ever happened to the have_const patch that was supposed to get
>> added to mkmf.rb?
>
> Sorry, but nothing yet.
>
>> I ask because I've hit yet another scenario where I need to check for an
>> enum value.
>>
>> BTW, there's a bug in that diff - the word "type" should be replaced
>> with "const".
>
> For the case of non-integral value as asked by Matz in
> [ruby-core:04428], I'd change the check code like this.
>
> If no objection, I want to commit it to 1.8 and trunk.
> Any thoughts?
Looks good!
> def try_const(const, header = nil, opt = "", &b)
> const, type = *const
> if try_compile(<<"SRC", opt, &b)
> #{COMMON_HEADERS}
> #{cpp_include(header)}
> /*top*/
> typedef #{type || 'int'} conftest_type;
> conftest_type conftestval = #{type ? '' : '(int)'}#{const};
> SRC
> $defs.push(format("-DHAVE_CONST_%s", const.strip.upcase.tr_s("^A-Z0-9_", "_")))
> true
> else
> false
> end
> end
>
> # Returns whether or not the constant +const+ is defined. You may
> # optionally pass the +type+ of +const+ as <code>[const, type]</code>,
> # like as:
> #
> # have_const(%w[PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER pthread_mutex_t], "pthread.h")
> #
> # You may also pass additional +headers+ to check against in addition
> # to the common header files, and additional flags to +opt+ which are
> # then passed along to the compiler.
> #
> # If found, a macro is passed as a preprocessor constant to the compiler using
> # the type name, in uppercase, prepended with 'HAVE_CONST_'.
> #
> # For example, if have_const('foo') returned true, then the HAVE_CONST_FOO
> # preprocessor macro would be passed to the compiler.
> #
> def have_const(const, header = nil, opt = "", &b)
> checking_for checking_message([*const].compact.join(' '), header, opt) do
> try_const(const, header, opt, &b)
> end
> end
Should it be "header" (singular) or "headers" (plural)? If more than one
header is allowed, I think a cpp_include is required in the try_const
method.
If not, then the docs for have_const need a minor adjustment.
Regards,
Dan