[#12073] Re: Ruby is much slower on linux when compiled with --enable-pthread? — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

9 messages 2007/09/04

[#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

81 messages 2007/09/06
[#18036] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/07/31

Restarting this thread because I missed it the first time around and

[#18037] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/07/31

Hi,

[#18038] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.brown@...> 2008/08/01

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#18046] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Michael Neumann <mneumann@...> 2008/08/01

Gregory Brown wrote:

[#18048] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/08/01

Michael Neumann wrote:

[#18051] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/08/01

Hi --

[#18053] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — "Wilson Bilkovich" <wilsonb@...> 2008/08/01

On 8/1/08, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#18074] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/08/01

Wilson Bilkovich wrote:

[#18080] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/08/02

Hi,

[#18097] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — "Pit Capitain" <pit.capitain@...> 2008/08/03

2008/8/2 Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>:

[#18040] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/08/01

On Jul 31, 2008, at 7:33 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#18056] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Thomas Enebo <Thomas.Enebo@...> 2008/08/01

Jim Weirich wrote:

[#18059] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/08/01

On Aug 1, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Thomas Enebo wrote:

[#12096] Next 1.8.6 on Sept. 22 — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hi all.

28 messages 2007/09/09

[#12201] how about actors implemented in ruby-core itself — hemant <gethemant@...>

Hi,

12 messages 2007/09/20

[#12248] arbitrary Unicode characters in identifiers? — David Flanagan <david@...>

12 messages 2007/09/26

[#12284] gc.c -- possible logic error? — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>

I've been looking at Tom Copeland's memory allocation problem:

36 messages 2007/09/28
[#12329] Re: gc.c -- possible logic error? — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2007/10/01

In article <Pine.GSO.4.64.0709281302390.26570@brains.eng.cse.dmu.ac.uk>,

[#12305] Will 1.8.6 remain compiled with VC6? — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...>

Hello Core developers.

29 messages 2007/09/30
[#12306] Re: Will 1.8.6 remain compiled with VC6? — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...> 2007/09/30

On 9/30/07, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: autoloading Fiber

From: David Flanagan <david@...>
Date: 2007-09-12 00:25:49 UTC
List: ruby-core #12149
I'm not trying to suggest that autoloading the fiber library is a good 
idea.  I'm pointing out that the way fiber is currently set up it cannot 
be autoloaded, and this seems like a bug.  Note that continuations can 
be autoloaded in 1.9

	David

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> 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
> 


In This Thread

Prev Next