[#11890] Ruby and Solaris door library — "Hiro Asari" <asari.ruby@...>

Hi, there. This is my first patch against ruby. I think I followed

19 messages 2007/08/13
[#11892] Re: Ruby and Solaris door library — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/08/14

Hiro Asari wrote:

[#11899] pack/unpack 64bit Integers — Hadmut Danisch <hadmut@...>

Hi,

13 messages 2007/08/14
[#11903] Re: pack/unpack 64bit Integers — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2007/08/15

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:50:01AM +0900, Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#11948] Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — David Flanagan <david@...>

I just noticed that my ruby1.9 build of August 17th includes a Fiber

22 messages 2007/08/22
[#11949] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/08/22

David Flanagan wrote:

[#11950] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@...> 2007/08/22

On 8/22/07, Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:

[#11952] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/08/22

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:50:12 +0900, "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:

[#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.

17 messages 2007/08/25
[#11991] Re: String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — "Michael Neumann" <mneumann@...> 2007/08/25

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:54:20 +0200, Yukihiro Matsumoto

[#11992] Re: String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/08/25

Hi,

[#12042] Encodings of string literals; explicit codepoint escapes? — David Flanagan <david@...>

This message contains queries that probably only Matz can answer:

16 messages 2007/08/31
[#12043] Re: Encodings of string literals; explicit codepoint escapes? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/08/31

Hi,

Re: Pragmas in Ruby 1.9

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2007-08-31 06:43:41 UTC
List: ruby-core #12041
Hi,

In message "Re: Pragmas in Ruby 1.9"
    on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:35:09 +0900, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> writes:

|However, if we're going to call these magic comments pragmas, then 
|people will want to be able to define other pragmas in comments. (And 
|indeed, a framework for accepting pragmas with names other than "coding" 
|is already in place in parse.y.)  This is what has me concerned.  If 
|we're going to have a general pragma facility in the language, I suggest 
|that it ought to be *part of the language* and not a magic 
|comment-processing hack.

Hmm, reasonable.  OK, I will not call these magic comments as
pragmas any longer.  We will rename internal parser routines as well
to remove the term pragma from them.

|2) If we need to introduce more general pragmas, I suggest overloading 
|Kernel.require.  It should behave as usual if passed a string.  But it 
|can handle pragmas if passed a hash.  Some possible examples (using Ruby 
|1.9 hash syntax):

This is interesting.  When we need to introduce pragma in the
language, I will come back this idea from you.

							matz.

In This Thread