[#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: Pragmas in Ruby 1.9
On 8/31/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
> David Flanagan wrote:
> > 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):
> >
> > require encoding: "utf-8"
> > require unsafe: "fibers"
> > require thread-model: "concurrent"
> > require version: 1.9
> > require decimal: true
> > require strict: true
>
> If this ever happens, I hope it's first accompanied by a standardized
> mechanism for extending (without replacing) require. Already rubygems
> and rails add their own require logic, and there's complications in both
> to make sure they work right. A standard way to extend require's
> behavior programmatically without physically replacing require would
> help guarantee future require extensions don't break old ones.
Completely and totally agreed. I'd actually want to see two mechanisms
for this -- one for adding new pragmas and one for overloading
standard require.
IMO, it'd be better if Kernel#require weren't overridable and offered
a different function for require extensions.
-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca