[#12372] Release compatibility/train — Prashant Srinivasan <Prashant.Srinivasan@...>

Hello all,

28 messages 2007/10/03
[#12373] Re: Release compatibility/train — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/10/03

Hi,

[#12374] Re: Release compatibility/train — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/10/03

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#12376] Re: Release compatibility/train — Prashant Srinivasan <Prashant.Srinivasan@...> 2007/10/03

[#12377] Re: Release compatibility/train — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/10/03

Hi,

[#12382] Re: Release compatibility/train — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/10/03

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#12385] Re: Release compatibility/train — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/10/03

Hi,

[#12388] Re: Release compatibility/train — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/10/03

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#12389] Re: Release compatibility/train — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/10/03

Hi,

[#12406] Re: Release compatibility/train — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/10/03

Hi --

[#12383] Include Rake in Ruby 1.9 — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...>

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

20 messages 2007/10/03

[#12539] Ordered Hashes in 1.9? — Michael Neumann <mneumann@...>

Hi all,

17 messages 2007/10/08
[#12542] Re: Ordered Hashes in 1.9? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/10/08

Hi,

[#12681] Unicode: Progress? — murphy <murphy@...>

Hello!

17 messages 2007/10/15

[#12693] retry: revised 1.9 http patch — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>

I'm reposting this because I've had little response to this version

11 messages 2007/10/15

[#12697] Range.first is incompatible with Enumerable.first — David Flanagan <david@...>

The new Enumerable.first method is a generalization of Array.first to

11 messages 2007/10/16

[#12754] Improving 'syntax error, unexpected $end, expecting kEND'? — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>

I've had a look at this, but can't see how to do it: When I get

17 messages 2007/10/18
[#12886] Re: Improving 'syntax error, unexpected $end, expecting kEND'? — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/10/23

The patch below changes this message to:

[#12758] Encoding::primary_encoding — David Flanagan <david@...>

Hi,

25 messages 2007/10/18
[#12763] Re: Encoding::primary_encoding — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/10/19

Hi,

[#12802] Re: Encoding::primary_encoding — Wolfgang N疆asi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/10/21

Nobuyoshi Nakada schrieb:

[#12803] Re: Encoding::primary_encoding — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/10/21

Hi,

[#12804] Re: Encoding::primary_encoding — Wolfgang N疆asi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/10/21

Nobuyoshi Nakada schrieb:

[#12808] Re: Encoding::primary_encoding — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/10/22

Hi,

[#12818] Re: Encoding::primary_encoding — Wolfgang N疆asi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/10/22

Nobuyoshi Nakada schrieb:

[#12820] Re: Encoding::primary_encoding — "Michal Suchanek" <hramrach@...> 2007/10/22

T24gMjIvMTAvMjAwNywgV29sZmdhbmcgTsOhZGFzaS1Eb25uZXIgPGVkLm9kYW5vd0B3b25hZG8u

[#12823] Re: Encoding::primary_encoding — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/10/22

Michal Suchanek schrieb:

[#12824] Re: Encoding::primary_encoding — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/10/22

Hi,

[#12767] \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — David Flanagan <david@...>

Back at the end of August, Matz wrote (see

45 messages 2007/10/19
[#12769] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — "Nobuyoshi Nakada" <nobu@...> 2007/10/19

Hi,

[#12782] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/10/20

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#12831] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/10/22

Hi,

[#12841] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/10/22

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#12862] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2007/10/23

At 04:19 07/10/23, David Flanagan wrote:

[#12864] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/10/23

Martin Duerst wrote:

[#12870] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2007/10/23

At 13:10 07/10/23, David Flanagan wrote:

[#12872] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/10/23

Martin Duerst wrote:

[#12936] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/10/25

Hi,

[#12980] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/10/26

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#13028] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/10/29

Hi,

[#13032] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/10/29

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#13034] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/10/29

Hi,

[#13082] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2007/10/30

At 16:46 07/10/29, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#13231] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/11/06

Hi,

[#13234] Re: \u escapes in string literals: proof of concept implementation — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2007/11/06

At 11:29 07/11/06, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#12825] clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>

Hi,

53 messages 2007/10/22
[#12830] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — Ben Bleything <ben@...> 2007/10/22

On Mon, Oct 22, 2007, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

[#12833] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...> 2007/10/22

On 23/10/07 at 00:13 +0900, Ben Bleything wrote:

[#12835] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...> 2007/10/22

On 10/22/07, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:

[#12836] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...> 2007/10/22

On 23/10/07 at 01:55 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#12888] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — Gonzalo Garramu <ggarra@...> 2007/10/23

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

[#12894] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...> 2007/10/24

On 24/10/07 at 05:14 +0900, Gonzalo Garramu wrote:

[#13057] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — Gonzalo Garramu <ggarra@...> 2007/10/29

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

[#13058] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...> 2007/10/29

On 30/10/07 at 07:28 +0900, Gonzalo Garramu wrote:

[#12848] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2007/10/22

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:55:29AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#12855] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...> 2007/10/23

On 10/22/07, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:

[#13016] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — bob@... (Bob Proulx) 2007/10/28

Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#13029] Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths? — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...> 2007/10/29

On 10/28/07, Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> wrote:

[#13054] Austin Ziegler's behaviour (Was: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths?) — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...> 2007/10/29

Austin,

[#13055] Re: Austin Ziegler's behaviour (Was: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths?) — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2007/10/29

On 10/29/07, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:

[#13064] Re: Austin Ziegler's behaviour (Was: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths?) — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...> 2007/10/30

On 10/29/07, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:

[#13066] Re: Austin Ziegler's behaviour (Was: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths?) — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2007/10/30

On 10/30/07, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

[#13094] Re: Austin Ziegler's behaviour (Was: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths?) — "Rick Bradley" <rick@...> 2007/10/30

Do we think that maybe, just maybe, things went off the rails when the

[#13095] Re: Austin Ziegler's behaviour (Was: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths?) — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2007/10/30

On 10/30/07, Rick Bradley <rick@rickbradley.com> wrote:

[#12900] Hopefully Complete List of Possible Encoding Specifications - Existing Ones — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>

Dear Ruby 1.9 architects, developers, and testers!

31 messages 2007/10/24
[#12905] Re: Hopefully Complete List of Possible Encoding Specifications - Existing Ones — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/10/24

Hi,

[#12907] Re: Hopefully Complete List of Possible Encoding Specifications - Existing Ones — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/10/24

Yukihiro Matsumoto schrieb:

[#12909] Re: Hopefully Complete List of Possible Encoding Specifications - Existing Ones — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/10/24

Hi,

[#12940] Re: Hopefully Complete List of Possible Encoding Specifications - Existing Ones — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/10/25
[#12942] Re: Hopefully Complete List of Possible Encoding Specifications - Existing Ones — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/10/25

I have a (hopefully) final question before testing all

[#12948] Re: Hopefully Complete List of Possible Encoding Specifications - Existing Ones — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/10/26

Hi,

[#12951] Fluent programming in Ruby — David Flanagan <david@...>

From the ChangeLog:

16 messages 2007/10/26

[#12996] General hash keys for colon notation — murphy <murphy@...>

Dear language designer(s) and parser wizards,

16 messages 2007/10/28

[#13027] Implementation of "guessUTF" method - final questions — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>

Dear Ruby designers, developers, and testers!

22 messages 2007/10/29

[#13069] new Enumerable.butfirst method — David Flanagan <david@...>

Matz,

17 messages 2007/10/30

Re: Unicode: Progress??

From: "Vincent Isambart" <vincent.isambart@...>
Date: 2007-10-19 20:54:30 UTC
List: ruby-core #12781
> Also, what about other encodings, besides Unicode?
> How would these be supported, if not via dynamically loaded libraries?
The well supported encodings will probably be UTF-8, Shift-JIS, EUC-JP
and ASCII. JRuby will probably have a good support for UTF-16. For the
other encodings, the best solution will probably to use Iconv or
something similar to work internally in UTF-8.
If you are using already existing files I understand you may want to
use other encodings but for new stuff I really recommend to go with
unicode encodings (and I'm not saying it that only for Ruby - even
though under Windows UTF-8 is not very well supported).

> Originally, I intended to port our embedded application from Ruby
> 1.6.8 to 1.8.6 for the (very valid) reasons that you cite.
> We only are moving from 1.6.8 because some obscure gc bug
> causes random crashes in our app. [The only non-standard
> library we use is termios]
And this type of bug is generally quite painful to find and correct.
And even if you have a correction for this bug you may be limited for
future evolutions.

> Further, the language spec is changing enough that the choice between
> 1.8 or 1.9 is not just about implementation.  For instance, 1.9's new
> hash (and the better keyword argument syntax that enables) are
> attractive.  We have biologists writing simple Ruby scripts for control
> of chemical protocols, so our end-users will benefit
> from this change.
>
> I'm still unsure as to whether I've made the right choice.  Any well
> reasoned feedback would be appreciated.
I'm not 100% sure 1.9 will be ready for prime time by mid 2008 (it
also depends on how you use ruby, if you run it for long periods of
time you are of course more likely to encounter strange bugs). But if
you have a reproducible bug in 1.9 you are without a doubt more likely
to find someone able to correct it.
And well you know doing accurate predictions in IT is very difficult ;).
But for the longer term I do not think it is a bad idea because even
if ruby were to go in a direction that is not the best for you, I am
pretty sure the other implementations will at least implement the 1.9
language changes.

In This Thread

Prev Next