[#13161] hacking on the "heap" implementation in gc.c — Lloyd Hilaiel <lloyd@...>

Hi all,

16 messages 2007/11/01

[#13182] Thinking of dropping YAML from 1.8 — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hello all.

14 messages 2007/11/03

[#13315] primary encoding and source encoding — David Flanagan <david@...>

I've got a couple of questions about the handling of primary encoding.

29 messages 2007/11/08
[#13331] Re: primary encoding and source encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/09

Hi,

[#13368] method names in 1.9 — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

61 messages 2007/11/10
[#13369] Re: method names in 1.9 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/10

Hi,

[#13388] Re: method names in 1.9 — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/11/11

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#13403] Re: method names in 1.9 — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...> 2007/11/11

On 11/11/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:

[#13410] Re: method names in 1.9 — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/11/11

Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#13413] Re: method names in 1.9 — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/11/11

David Flanagan wrote:

[#13423] Re: method names in 1.9 — Jordi <mumismo@...> 2007/11/12

Summing it up:

[#13386] Re: method names in 1.9 — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/11

[#13391] Re: method names in 1.9 — Matthew Boeh <mboeh@...> 2007/11/11

On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:50:18PM +0900, Trans wrote:

[#13457] mingw rename — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...>

Currently for different windows' builds, the names for RUBY_PLATFORM

13 messages 2007/11/13

[#13485] Proposal: Array#walker — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>

Good morning all together!

23 messages 2007/11/14
[#13486] Re: Proposal: Array#walker — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/11/14

A nicer version may be...

[#13488] Re: Proposal: Array#walker — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/14

[#13495] Re: Proposal: Array#walker — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/14

[#13498] state of threads in 1.9 — Jordi <mumismo@...>

Are Threads mapped to threads on the underlying operating system in

30 messages 2007/11/14
[#13519] Re: state of threads in 1.9 — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...> 2007/11/14

[#13526] Re: state of threads in 1.9 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/11/14

On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:18 , Bill Kelly wrote:

[#13528] test/unit and miniunit — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>

When is the 1.9 freeze?

17 messages 2007/11/14

[#13564] Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc. — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>

Good evening all together!

53 messages 2007/11/15
[#13575] Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc. — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/11/15

On Nov 15, 2007 8:14 PM, Wolfgang N=E1dasi-Donner <ed.odanow@wonado.de> wro=

[#13578] Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc. — Michael Neumann <mneumann@...> 2007/11/16

Nikolai Weibull schrieb:

[#13598] wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/11/16

Hi --

[#13605] Re: wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/16

[#13612] Re: wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/11/16

Hi --

[#13624] Re: wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/11/16

On Nov 16, 2007 12:40 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#13632] Re: wondering about #tap — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/11/16

David A. Black wrote:

[#13634] Re: wondering about #tap — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/11/16

Hi --

[#13636] Re: wondering about #tap — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...> 2007/11/16

On Nov 16, 2007 12:40 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#13637] Re: wondering about #tap — murphy <murphy@...> 2007/11/16

Rick DeNatale wrote:

[#13640] Re: wondering about #tap — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/11/16

murphy schrieb:

[#13614] Suggestion for native thread tests — "Eust痃uio Rangel" <eustaquiorangel@...>

Hi!

12 messages 2007/11/16

[#13685] Problems with \M-x in utf-8 encoded strings — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>

Hi!

11 messages 2007/11/18

[#13741] retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

In 1.8, I could write:

46 messages 2007/11/23
[#13742] Re: retry semantics changed — "Brian Mitchell" <binary42@...> 2007/11/23

On Nov 23, 2007 12:06 PM, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:

[#13743] Re: retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/11/23

[#13746] Re: retry semantics changed — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/23

Hi,

[#13747] Re: retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/11/23

[#13748] Re: retry semantics changed — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/23

Hi,

[#13749] Re: retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/11/23

Re: Keyword Arguments

From: "Brian Mitchell" <binary42@...>
Date: 2007-11-10 00:16:47 UTC
List: ruby-core #13353
On 11/9/07, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Vanbroekhoven mentioned this to me and I have to agree. I'd
> rather not see 1.9 released until it has keyword arguments support.
>
> Day in and day out I have to write code to do it manually. Seems to me
> there's more than enough demand, and I would imagine most of us are
> willing to wait a little while longer if we can get it.
>
> Is there some significant issue(s) preventing it from getting in?

I would say that 1.9 should be released as planned with possible
updates later on the journey to 2.0. Right now I'd like to favor
finalizing everything that is going to be broken from 1.8 rather than
what will be new. If the current state of 1.9 allows keyword arguments
to be added in the future without bad effect to planned semantics,
then I think I can wait.

I'd still like to see the discussion of keyword argument
implementations continue on from where it left off the last few times.
It seemed there were still discrepancies with proposed styles (Matz
(CLISPy) vs Sydney (Pythonic) -- two years ago was the last time I
took a dive into this stuff). Maybe we ought to grasp an understanding
of what is going to be offered before we start requesting that the
feature just be added on.

Brian.

In This Thread