[#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:

Re: cross-platform1: st1.dev == st2.dev and st1.ino == st2.ino consideredharmful

From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2008-04-14 13:55:52 UTC
List: ruby-core #16384
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas.Enebo@Sun.COM [mailto:Thomas.Enebo@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:16 PM
> To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: cross-platform1: st1.dev == st2.dev and st1.ino == 
> st2.ino consideredharmful
> 
> I propose we add something which makes this system-specific 
> code go away:
> 
>       st1 = stat(file1)
>       st2 = stat(file2)
>       st1.dev == st2.dev and st1.ino == st2.ino
> 
> Perhaps:
> 
>       st1.same?(st2)
> 
> Then people can get away from having to know any gory details 
> about filesystems.  It should also reduce complexity of APIs 
> working with files in Ruby.  Seem reasonable?

File::Stat already mixes in Comparable, defining File::Stat#== to be
true if the mtime is the same.

I say redefine File::Stat#==, and get rid of Comparable, since I would
have no idea what >, <, >=, <= and between? mean in the context of a
File::Stat object, I've never seen them compared that way in practice,
and I never use Comparable methods in File::Stat personally because,
beyond simply not needing them, I would never be able to remember what
the semantics are anyway.

How File::Stat#== should be redefined exactly is open for debate.

Regards,

Dan


This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly 
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication 
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy 
all copies of the communication and any attachments.

In This Thread