[#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:17884] Re: duping the NilClass

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@...>
Date: 2008-07-21 08:38:13 UTC
List: ruby-core #17884
David A. Black wrote (and Shohei Urabe supported):
> Hi --
>
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Nasir Khan wrote:
>
>> I write a lot of hand crafted dup or clone because I want control as
>> well as
>> better performance than the Marshal idiom. I ended up re-opening
>> NilClass,
>> TrueClass and FalseClass for def dup; self; end
>> While most of the things in Ruby are very intuitive and predictable from
>> functional perspective, this sort of stood out.. that's all.
>
> I understand not wanting true.dup etc. to break things,

So you agree that the current behavior just breaks things?

Or do you (or somebody else) know about something that would be
broken by changing the behavior (i.e. returning self)?


> but it's hard
> for me to get past the fact that true.dup doesn't return a dup of
> true, if it's defined to return true.

There are objects where a dup returns a true duplicate,
and there are some special ones where you can duplicate
and duplicate and it's still the same. Sometimes the
laws of physics (or computation) are not exactly what
they seem to be. There are some objects that you can
duplicate and duplicate, and they just stay the same :-).

Given duck typing and all, returning itself (the truest
of true copies, so to say) seems to be the best behavior
for dup on these objects.

>Maybe it's a case for a
> "dangerous" dup:
>
>   class Object
>     def dup!
>       dup
>     rescue TypeError
>       self
>     end
>   end

In what sense would this definition of dup(!) be dangerous?

I think I understand your analogy with other ! methods, giving
back the same object instead of a new one, but ! methods are
used when something is being changed, and the objects in
question are characterized just by the fact that they can't
be changed, so ! doesn't seem very appropriate.

(Of course, because we are using Ruby, nil and friends *can*
be changed, but that's not something one would usually do,
and is independent of the issue at hand.)

Regards,    Martin.



#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     


In This Thread