[#12073] Re: Ruby is much slower on linux when compiled with --enable-pthread? — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:24:57PM +0900, Florian Frank wrote:
On 9/5/07, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:
[#12085] New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — David Flanagan <david@...>
Four new methods have been added to Array the Ruby 1.9 trunk. I've got
On 9/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:
Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
On 9/7/07, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> writes:
On 9/13/07, Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> wrote:
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
Restarting this thread because I missed it the first time around and
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Gregory Brown wrote:
Michael Neumann wrote:
Hi --
On 8/1/08, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
Hi,
Hi --
2008/8/2 Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Florian Frank wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
On Jul 31, 2008, at 7:33 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Jim Weirich wrote:
On Aug 1, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Thomas Enebo wrote:
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@gmail.com> wrote:
Gregory Brown wrote:
On Aug 1, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Thomas Enebo wrote:
[#12096] Next 1.8.6 on Sept. 22 — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
Hi all.
Well there is this patch:
Rocky Bernstein wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 9/10/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
On Sunday 09 September 2007, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
[#12118] Is this expected behavior? — James Edward Gray II <james@...>
As part of TextMate's development process we have an application on a
[#12140] Strange ripper bug — "Alexey I. Froloff" <sir_raorn@...>
Sometimes, ripper can't parse valid code (trunk from yesterday).
On [Wed, 12.09.2007 03:05], Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On [Thu, 13.09.2007 02:58], Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Hi,
[#12143] Blocks passed to constructors - is this behavior by design? — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>
class Foo
It's because the constructor isn't actually finished executing, and the
[#12166] Wrapped loads and Module::nesting — David Flanagan <david@...>
When I call load with a second argument of true, the file is loaded into
[#12184] Misleading error message with URI::InvalidURIError — "Douglas Tan" <bianster@...>
The error message that URI.parse displays when supplied with a uri
[#12200] class variables and singleton classes — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Class variables in singleton classes are separate from class
[#12201] how about actors implemented in ruby-core itself — hemant <gethemant@...>
Hi,
On 9/20/07, hemant <gethemant@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
[#12220] `ri Kernel#open` Bug — James Edward Gray II <james@...>
$ ri -T Kernel#open
On Sep 21, 2007, at 16:42, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 8:13 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Sep 22, 2007, at 7:28 AM, Jim Freeze wrote:
[#12231] Wrong return value with []= — Michael Neumann <mneumann@...>
Hi,
[#12237] Latest benchmarks — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
I just ran the benchmark suite that comes with Ruby 1.9 on my 32-bit
[#12247] Fibers as semi-coroutines enabled by default — David Flanagan <david@...>
Hi all,
Hi,
[#12248] arbitrary Unicode characters in identifiers? — David Flanagan <david@...>
[#12255] Array#-, &, |, uniq don't use == — murphy <murphy@...>
Hello!
[#12284] gc.c -- possible logic error? — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
I've been looking at Tom Copeland's memory allocation problem:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:57:22 +0900, Hugh Sasse <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, MenTaLguY wrote:
In article <Pine.GSO.4.64.0709281302390.26570@brains.eng.cse.dmu.ac.uk>,
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Tanaka Akira wrote:
In article <Pine.GSO.4.64.0710011802250.11425@brains.eng.cse.dmu.ac.uk>,
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Tanaka Akira wrote:
On Oct 1, 2007, at 10:54 , Hugh Sasse wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Eric Hodel wrote:
[#12294] String.force_encoding — David Flanagan <david@...>
Hi,
[#12305] Will 1.8.6 remain compiled with VC6? — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...>
Hello Core developers.
On 9/30/07, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/07, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/07, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/07, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
I know this not the right place to post this, but I'll start here
Austin Ziegler wrote:
> Yes, let's take this to Ruby-Talk so we can all participate. Most of the
On 9/30/07, Charlie Savage <cfis@savagexi.com> wrote:
On 01/10/2007, Charlie Savage <cfis@savagexi.com> wrote:
On 10/3/07, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> wrote:
Re: autoloading Fiber
David Flanagan wrote: > In order to use the new Fiber class in 1.9, we have to require 'fiber'. > The fiber functionality is actually built into the core (so it can be > used for external iterators) but in order to get at the API for using it > in Ruby, we have to require 'fiber'. Ko1 says that this is for safety > reasons. (The same goes for continuations in Ruby 1.9: you must > explictly require them if you want to use them.) > > Someone (I forget who) on this list pointed out that the Fiber class > itself is defined by default, but that the methods of the class are not. > I don't understand why this is, and I've just realized that it causes > problems with autoload: > > autoload :Fiber, "fiber" > > This won't work. Since Fiber is already defined, the "fiber" module will > never be autoloaded... (Unless ko1 thinks that fibers are so unsafe we > should not be allowed to autoload them? :-) > > Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any code that depends on > the Fiber constant being defined before any of its methods are, so I'm > wondering if the patch below wouldn't be okay. I've barely tested it, > but it makes autoload work and it doesn't seem to interfere with > external iterators. I'd recommend against making Fiber autoload, since some implementations may not be able to provide it. If Fiber autoloads, those impls may instead get a const missing error...that could happen anywhere Fiber is referenced, and you wouldn't be able to know where. Having scripts do an explicit require would ensure you can respond to fibers not being present, since you'd know at require time they aren't available. There's also the split between "safe" and "unsafe" Fiber features, which it seems would be better served by having explicit requires. - Charlie