[#18121] [Ruby 1.8.7 - Bug #405] (Open) ssl.rb:31: [BUG] Bus Error — Anonymous <redmine@...>

Issue #405 has been reported by Anonymous.

14 messages 2008/08/04

[#18130] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>

> Seriously though... Array.first is a noun.

10 messages 2008/08/05

[#18319] NEW Command: absolute_path() -- — "C.E. Thornton" <admin@...>

Core,

14 messages 2008/08/16
[#18321] Re: NEW Command: absolute_path() -- — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/08/18

Hi,

[#18381] [Bug #496] DRb.start_service(nil) is very slow — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #496: DRb.start_service(nil) is very slow

11 messages 2008/08/25

[ruby-core:18091] Re: Suggestion to change Time#to_s format to an official standard

From: "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
Date: 2008-08-02 21:16:28 UTC
List: ruby-core #18091
FYI, Ruby 1.9 uses another format, "2008-08-03 06:16:10 +0900".

Dirkjan Bussink wrote:
> Hello people,
> 
> When working with the JSON gem today, I found an annoyance. It currently 
> uses Time#to_s to create a JSON representation of a Time object. The 
> problem with this is that not every browser apparently handles this format.
> 
> Because of this, I started to dig into it and found that Ruby's format 
> of Time#to_s doesn't adhere to any official standard. It looks like UNIX 
> date output for some locales and also has a resemblance to RFC2822, but 
> the location of the year differs.
> 
> Is there any reason that Time#to_s doesn't adhere to any standard? It 
> would probably make the output easier to parse, for example for 
> browsers, but I think it would be better overall to use a standard here.
> 
> Another related topic is DateTime#to_s. Is the output difference on 
> purpose here? Or has it never been given any thought?
> 
> I hope some people here could shed some light on this.

-- 
NARUSE, Yui  <naruse@airemix.jp>

In This Thread

Prev Next