[#17566] rubychecker - runs checks on a Ruby interpreter — Igal Koshevoy <igal@...>

I've put together a shell script that runs checks on a Ruby interpreter.

14 messages 2008/07/03

[#17615] [PATCH] ruby-mode.el: Fix here-doc strings with inner quotes — Nathan Weizenbaum <nex342@...>

At the moment, ruby-mode.el uses font-lock-keywords as opposed to

22 messages 2008/07/05
[#17657] Re: [PATCH] ruby-mode.el: Fix here-doc strings with inner quotes — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/07/08

[#17678] Re: [PATCH] ruby-mode.el: Fix here-doc strings with inner quotes — Nathan Weizenbaum <nex342@...> 2008/07/09

It was designed to fix the following case:

[#17755] Re: [PATCH] ruby-mode.el: Fix here-doc strings with inner quotes — Nathan Weizenbaum <nex342@...> 2008/07/13

Here's a third patch that fixes a bug in the second and uses a quicker

[#17772] Re: [PATCH] ruby-mode.el: Fix here-doc strings with inner quotes — Nathan Weizenbaum <nex342@...> 2008/07/15

One more patch which fixes a few bugs in the the last one.

[#17773] Re: [PATCH] ruby-mode.el: Fix here-doc strings with inner quotes — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/07/15

Hi,

[#17776] Re: [PATCH] ruby-mode.el: Fix here-doc strings with inner quotes — Nathan Weizenbaum <nex342@...> 2008/07/15

Looks like version 22 doesn't support explicitly numbered regexp groups.

[#17779] Re: [PATCH] ruby-mode.el: Fix here-doc strings with inner quotes — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/07/15

Hi,

[#17783] Re: [PATCH] ruby-mode.el: Fix here-doc strings with inner quotes — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/07/15

Hi,

[#17788] Re: [PATCH] ruby-mode.el: Fix here-doc strings with inner quotes — Nathan Weizenbaum <nex342@...> 2008/07/15

Alright, here's a version that fixes both the highlighting bug and the

[#17793] Re: [PATCH] ruby-mode.el: Fix here-doc strings with inner quotes — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/07/16

Hi,

[#17644] Features to be included in Ruby 1.9.1 — "Yugui (Yuki Sonoda)" <yugui@...>

Hi, all

27 messages 2008/07/08

[#17674] [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #238] (Open) Ruby doesn't respect the Windows read-only flag — Jim Deville <redmine@...>

Issue #238 has been reported by Jim Deville.

10 messages 2008/07/08

[#17708] [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #252] (Open) Array#sort doesn't respect overridden <=> — Ryan Davis <redmine@...>

Issue #252 has been reported by Ryan Davis.

13 messages 2008/07/09

[#17871] duping the NilClass — "Nasir Khan" <rubylearner@...>

While nil is an object, calling dup on it causes TypeError. This doesnt seem

33 messages 2008/07/20
[#17872] Re: duping the NilClass — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/07/20

Nasir Khan wrote:

[#17873] Re: duping the NilClass — "Meinrad Recheis" <meinrad.recheis@...> 2008/07/20

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org>

[#17877] Re: duping the NilClass — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/07/20

Meinrad Recheis wrote:

[#17879] Re: duping the NilClass — Kurt Stephens <ks@...> 2008/07/20

Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

[#17880] Re: duping the NilClass — "Nasir Khan" <rubylearner@...> 2008/07/21

I write a lot of hand crafted dup or clone because I want control as well as

[#17881] Re: duping the NilClass — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/07/21

Hi --

[#17882] Re: duping the NilClass — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/07/21

+1 to David. A convenient way to do Marshal idiom should be a new

[#17885] Re: duping the NilClass — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/07/21

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#17887] Re: duping the NilClass — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/07/21

Hi --

[#17889] Re: duping the NilClass — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/07/21

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:02 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#17883] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #340] (Open) 1.9/trunk does not work when compiled with llvm-gcc4 2.3 (gcc 4.2.1) — Ollivier Robert <redmine@...>

Issue #340 has been reported by Ollivier Robert.

14 messages 2008/07/21

[#17943] RUBY_ENGINE? — "Vladimir Sizikov" <vsizikov@...>

Hi,

56 messages 2008/07/24
[#17950] Re: RUBY_ENGINE? — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2008/07/25

In article <3454c9680807241200xf7cc766qb987905a3987bb78@mail.gmail.com>,

[#17958] Re: RUBY_ENGINE? — "Vladimir Sizikov" <vsizikov@...> 2008/07/25

Hi,

[#17981] Re: RUBY_ENGINE? — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2008/07/26

In article <3454c9680807250054i70db563duf44b42d92ba41bfb@mail.gmail.com>,

[ruby-core:17646] Re: Features to be included in Ruby 1.9.1

From: Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Date: 2008-07-08 04:18:10 UTC
List: ruby-core #17646
On Jul 7, 2008, at 9:59 PM, Yugui (Yuki Sonoda) wrote:

>
> Committers and anyone who intend to write patches, let me know your
> plan. What features will be implemented by 25 Sep? What will not?

My biggest concern is not for the core interpreter, but instead for  
the standard libraries and for commonly used Gems.

The libraries are a minor issue, but still an annoying one. It is  
disturbing that Ruby 1.9 was supposed to have been relatively stable  
for over 6 months now, and yet we still have libraries that are  
supplied with the standard distribution that are broken. From the end- 
users perspective, these libraries are as much part of Ruby as is the  
String class, and it reduces confidence to find some don't work.

But a bigger issue is the state of Gems. A whole bunch of Gems are  
broken by 1.9. Changes to encoding, string indexing, and the like have  
caused all kinds of errors, both big and subtle. I'd guess that  
perhaps 50% of the Gems out there just plain don't work under 1.9.

Again, looking at it from an end user's point of view, it's  
disturbing, particularly as there's no indication until I try to use a  
Gem whether or not it works. And once a user finds a couple of Gems  
they rely on are broken by 1.9, they just won't switch.

Until this situation is addressed, I don't think we'll see widespread  
adoption of 1.9. And if we don't see widespread adoption, I question  
the point of releasing it at all.

So, along with the release plans for the interpreter itself, I think  
I'd like to see two other things happen:

1. Change the RubyGems built into 1.9 so that it defaults  
required_ruby_version to '< 1.9'. That way, any gem that doesn't  
explicitly set required_ruby_version will automatically not run on  
1.9. This will act as an obvious indicator to both users and the gem's  
maintainer that something needs to be done before the Gem is  
acknowledged to be compatible with 1.9. It will also allow us to do  
queries on RubyForge to track the progress of the 1.9 migration. With  
many gems, no change will be required apart from an update to the  
gemspec. But forcing the maintainer to make that update means that the  
gem is explicitly listed as being 1.9 compatible.

2. As a parallel activity, I think we need to make Gem maintainers  
aware of the need to make their Gems compatible. We have contact  
details in RubyForge耀tarting a maintainers' wiki, and emailing all  
maintainers with details, will be a good start.

I love the features in 1.9. I seems a shame not to have people use  
it.  Let's put some effort into making the whole package, and not just  
the interpreter, ready for widespread adoption.



Dave





In This Thread