[#16116] RCRchive shutting down — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi everyone --

22 messages 2008/04/03
[#16119] Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/03

This is quite sad news, I feel that a mailing list does not offer all

[#16121] Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/03

Hi,

[#16122] Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/03

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#16123] issue tracking (Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/03

Hi,

[#16124] Re: issue tracking (Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down) — "Meinrad Recheis" <meinrad.recheis@...> 2008/04/03

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#16128] RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

Hi,

60 messages 2008/04/03
[#16139] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/04/03

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:41:41PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#16143] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/04/03

On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Paul Brannan wrote:

[#16146] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/03

Hi,

[#16147] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezmobius@...> 2008/04/03

[#16149] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/03

Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote:

[#16155] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — "Yemi I. D. Bedu" <yemi@...> 2008/04/03

Hello,

[#16158] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/03

Yemi I. D. Bedu wrote:

[#16175] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@...> 2008/04/04

On 4 Apr 2008, at 00:23, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#16194] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Chris Cummer <chris@...> 2008/04/04

On 4-Apr-08, at 3:05 AM, Eleanor McHugh wrote:

[#16195] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2008/04/04

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Chris Cummer <chris@postal-code.com> wrote:

[#16240] syntax request — "ry dahl" <ry@...>

Often times when one has many long arguments and orders them like this

42 messages 2008/04/06
[#16263] Re: syntax request — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...> 2008/04/07

[#16266] Re: syntax request — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/08

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Bill Kelly wrote:

[#16282] Re: syntax request — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/04/08

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:26PM +0900, David A. Black wrote:

[#16290] Could someone confirm signal handling is broken on OSX? — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

I've raised this before, but no one replied. I'd like to double check

12 messages 2008/04/08

[#16359] design meeting — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

Hi,

18 messages 2008/04/12

[#16397] Ruby 1.8.7-preview1 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>

Folks,

16 messages 2008/04/15

[#16482] Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>

Hi

32 messages 2008/04/22
[#16483] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/04/22

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:29AM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:

[#16484] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/22

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote:

[#16487] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/22

Hi --

[#16488] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/22

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:44 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#16490] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/22

Hi --

[#16501] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — ts <decoux@...> 2008/04/23

Robert Dober wrote:

[#16507] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

50 messages 2008/04/23
[#16511] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/23

David A. Black wrote:

[#16512] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/23

Hi --

[#16525] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/23

David A. Black wrote:

[#16527] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/23

Hi --

[#16534] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Thomas Enebo <Thomas.Enebo@...> 2008/04/23

David A. Black wrote:

[#16546] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/24

Hi --

[#16552] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcanally@...> 2008/04/24

Or changing #send to private...or (insert progressive but code

[#16564] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/24

Jeremy McAnally wrote:

[#16567] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/24

Hi --

[#16570] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/24

Hi,

[#16531] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "Eric Mahurin" <eric.mahurin@...> 2008/04/23

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:21 AM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

Migrating TMail to 1.9 (1) - Regexp encoding problem

From: "Mikel Lindsaar" <raasdnil@...>
Date: 2008-04-01 11:56:37 UTC
List: ruby-core #16097
Hello all,

This is a repost (and change) to an email I sent to Ruby-Talk.  I
think it is more appropriate here...

I am the new maintainer for TMail and am getting it working with 1.9.
I had it working (all test passing) in the January version of 1.9, but
it seems the March release of 1.9 has gotten a lot more strict in it's
encoding enforcement as now I have the following error comming up:

ArgumentError: incompatible encoding regexp match (US-ASCII regexp
with ISO-2022-JP string)

I don't really want to set the regexp to UTF-8 or something and then
transliterate the match strings as that just isn't going to scale I
think when you are talking about emails which can have almost anything
in them, and making a regexp for every encoding type also isn't the
solution.

Also, the string that is being matched may not always be an
iso-2022-jp string, so changing the encoding type on the regexp (which
I don't think is possible) wouldn't really work as I would have to do
it for all encodings.

The only other solution I can think of is going through TMail and
making all encodings internal to TMail one type (say UTF-8) and then
transliterating all input and output to match.  But I am not totally
sure what I will run into on that, as while I understand some of the
issues of encodings and charactersets, I am by no means an expert on
the subject.

Plus, I don't really feel like ripping out the insides of TMail right now :)

How are others handling this sort of thing?

The method that is failing is scanadd, at each of the matches.

    def scanadd( str, force = false )
      types = ''
      strs = []

      until str.empty?
        if m = /\A[^\e\t\r\n ]+/.match(str)
          types << (force ? 'j' : 'a')
          strs.push m[0]

        elsif m = /\A[\t\r\n ]+/.match(str)
          types << 's'
          strs.push m[0]

        elsif m = /\A\e../.match(str)
          esc = m[0]
          str = m.post_match
          if esc != "\e(B" and m = /\A[^\e]+/.match(str)
            types << 'j'
            strs.push m[0]
          end

        else
          raise 'TMail FATAL: encoder scan fail'
        end
        (str = m.post_match) unless m.nil?
      end

      do_encode types, strs
    end

And the failing test is in test_encode.rb (for anyone with TMail
installed) and looks like this:

 def test_s_encode
   SRCS.each_index do |i|
     assert_equal crlf(OK[i]),
                  TMail::Encoder.encode(NKF.nkf('-j', SRCS[i]))
   end
 end

 def crlf( str )
   str.gsub(/\n|\r\n|\r/) { "\r\n" }
 end

Which is using the string:

SRCS = ["a cde \343\201\202\343\201\204\343\201\206\343\201\210\343\201\212\343\201\202\343\201\204\343\201\206\343\201\210\343\201\212\343\201\202\343\201\204\343\201\206\343\201\210\343\201\212\343\201\202\343\201\204\343\201\206\343\201\210\343\201\212\343\201\202\343\201\204\343\201\206\343\201\210\343\201\212"]

To match against:

OK = [
 "a cde あいうえおあいうえおあいうえおあ\n\tいうえおあいうえお",
#1
 ]

Regards

Mikel

In This Thread

Prev Next