[#19075] Request For Removal: No Operator Concatenation — James Gray <james@...>

I'm disappointed that Ruby still supports this goofy syntax:

30 messages 2008/10/01
[#19076] Re: Request For Removal: No Operator Concatenation — "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.brown@...> 2008/10/01

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM, James Gray <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:

[#19078] Re: Request For Removal: No Operator Concatenation — "Jim Freeze" <jimfreeze@...> 2008/10/01

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com> wrote:

[#19080] Re: Request For Removal: No Operator Concatenation — James Gray <james@...> 2008/10/01

On Oct 1, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Jim Freeze wrote:

[#19081] Re: Request For Removal: No Operator Concatenation — "Jim Freeze" <jimfreeze@...> 2008/10/01

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:29 PM, James Gray <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:

[#19082] Re: Request For Removal: No Operator Concatenation — James Gray <james@...> 2008/10/01

On Oct 1, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Jim Freeze wrote:

[#19083] Re: Request For Removal: No Operator Concatenation — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/10/01

On Oct 1, 2008, at 11:42 AM, James Gray wrote:

[#19084] Re: Request For Removal: No Operator Concatenation — "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.brown@...> 2008/10/01

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

[#19087] Re: Request For Removal: No Operator Concatenation — "Jim Freeze" <jimfreeze@...> 2008/10/01

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com> wrote:

[#19132] [Feature #615] "with" operator — Lavir the Whiolet <redmine@...>

Feature #615: "with" operator

33 messages 2008/10/05
[#19137] Re: [Feature #615] "with" operator — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/10/06

Hi,

[#19138] Re: [Feature #615] "with" operator — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/10/06

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:46:49AM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#19141] Re: [Feature #615] "with" operator — _why <why@...> 2008/10/06

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:56:23PM +0900, Paul Brannan wrote:

[#19148] Re: [Feature #615] "with" operator — Trans <transfire@...> 2008/10/06

[#19149] Re: [Feature #615] "with" operator — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...> 2008/10/06

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#19150] Re: [Feature #615] "with" operator — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/10/06

Hi --

[#19154] Re: [Feature #615] "with" operator — _why <why@...> 2008/10/07

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:47:23AM +0900, David A. Black wrote:

[#19250] default_internal encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

I'm documenting default_internal for the PickAxe, and have a couple of

26 messages 2008/10/09
[#19254] Re: default_internal encoding — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...> 2008/10/09

Hi,

[#19255] Re: performance of C function calls in 1.8 vs 1.9 — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...> 2008/10/10

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Paul Brannan <pbrannan / atdesk.com> wrote:

[#19289] [Bug #633] dl segfaults on x86_64-linux systems — Benjamin Floering <redmine@...>

Bug #633: dl segfaults on x86_64-linux systems

19 messages 2008/10/10

[#19315] [Feature #643] __DIR__ — Thomas Sawyer <redmine@...>

Feature #643: __DIR__

14 messages 2008/10/13

[#19342] [Bug #649] Memory leak in a array assignment? — Henri Suur-Inkeroinen <redmine@...>

Bug #649: Memory leak in a array assignment?

14 messages 2008/10/15

[#19350] Net::HTTP.post_form bug : can't post form to correct uri which contains QueryString(QueryString part are lost) and revise — Klesh <kleshwong@...>

Hi,

10 messages 2008/10/16
[#19352] Re: Net::HTTP.post_form bug : can't post form to correct uri which contains QueryString(QueryString part are lost) and revise — "Matt Todd" <chiology@...> 2008/10/16

You are trying to use GET-style query params instead of POSTing the

[#19378] Constant names in 1.9 — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

When Ruby makes the tIDENTIFIER/tCONSTANT test, it looks to see if the =20=

13 messages 2008/10/18

[#19397] [Feature #666] Enumerable::to_hash — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Feature #666: Enumerable::to_hash

14 messages 2008/10/20
[#23249] [Feature #666](Rejected) Enumerable::to_hash — Yukihiro Matsumoto <redmine@...> 2009/04/18

Issue #666 has been updated by Yukihiro Matsumoto.

[#19422] Now that lambda has more powerful arguments... — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

is there anything that

24 messages 2008/10/21
[#19423] Re: Now that lambda has more powerful arguments... — Wolfgang N疆asi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2008/10/21

Dave Thomas schrieb:

[#19424] Re: Now that lambda has more powerful arguments... — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/10/21

[#19427] Re: Now that lambda has more powerful arguments... — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/10/21

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 04:01:45AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#19429] Re: Now that lambda has more powerful arguments... — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/10/21

Hi --

[#19430] Re: Now that lambda has more powerful arguments... — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/10/21

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 04:38:19AM +0900, David A. Black wrote:

[#19431] Re: Now that lambda has more powerful arguments... — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/10/21

Hi --

[#19432] Re: Now that lambda has more powerful arguments... — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/10/21

On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:24 PM, David A. Black wrote:

[#19465] [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is too late when encoding is mismatch — Takeyuki Fujioka <redmine@...>

Bug #680: csv.rb: CSV.parse is too late when encoding is mismatch

41 messages 2008/10/24
[#19466] Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is too late when encoding is mismatch) — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...> 2008/10/24

Hi,

[#19471] Re: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch) — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2008/10/24

A default for the source encoding has been discussed quite a long

[#19473] Re: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch) — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...> 2008/10/24

Hi,

[#19474] Re: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/10/24

Hi,

[#19515] String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...> 2008/10/26

Hi,

[#19517] Re: String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/10/26

Hi,

[#19518] Re: String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...> 2008/10/26

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:26:32 +1100, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org>

[#19522] Re: String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/10/26

Hi,

[#19525] Re: String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...> 2008/10/26

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:34:26 +1100, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org>

[#19531] Re: String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/10/27

Hi,

[#19532] Re: String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...> 2008/10/27

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:07:54 +1100, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org>

[#19533] Re: String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/10/27

Hi,

[#19535] Re: String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...> 2008/10/27

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:27:57 +1100, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org>

[#19538] Re: String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/10/27

Hi,

[#19540] Re: String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...> 2008/10/27

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:55:32 +1100, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org>

[#19546] Re: String literal encoding (Was: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch)) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/10/27

Hi,

[#19480] Re: Default source encoding (Was: [Bug #680] csv.rb: CSV.parse is toolate when encoding is mismatch) — James Gray <james@...> 2008/10/24

On Oct 24, 2008, at 1:52 AM, Martin Duerst wrote:

[#19566] GC thought — "Roger Pack" <roger.pack@...>

Here is a recent patch I've been experimenting with--for any advice. [1]

26 messages 2008/10/28
[#19569] Re: GC thought — Ken Bloom <kbloom@...> 2008/10/28

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:02:17 +0900, Roger Pack wrote:

[#19575] Re: GC thought — "Roger Pack" <roger.pack@...> 2008/10/28

> Letting the program continue execution during the mark phase could cause

[#19577] Re: GC thought — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/10/28

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 01:04:52AM +0900, Roger Pack wrote:

[#19596] Re: GC thought — "Robert Klemme" <shortcutter@...> 2008/10/29

2008/10/28 Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com>:

[#19590] [Feature #695] More flexibility when combining ASCII-8BIT strings with other encodings — Michael Selig <redmine@...>

Feature #695: More flexibility when combining ASCII-8BIT strings with other encodings

13 messages 2008/10/29
[#19646] Re: [Feature #695] More flexibility when combining ASCII-8BIT strings with other encodings — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...> 2008/10/30

Hi,

[ruby-core:19630] Re: Net::HTTP.post_form bug : can't post form to correct uri which contains QueryString(QueryString part are lost) and revise

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@...>
Date: 2008-10-30 07:17:49 UTC
List: ruby-core #19630
Some datapoints:

RFC 2616 is currently under revision in the httpbis WG in the IETF.
The question of what is a resource has been brought up and assigned
a ticket/issue number (see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/58).
The proposed text includes an optional query part.
Also, there is a ticket for updating the references to the newest
version of the URI spec
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/34).

Please note that there is a significant overlap between the
people working on the HTTP spec(s) and the people who worked
on the URI spec. Also, the URI spec is a (full) IETF Standard,
whereas the HTTP spec is still at Draft Standard, being
revised to hopefully become a full standard
(see http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcsearch.pl).

Hope this helps,     Martin.



At 01:16 08/10/26, mathew wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:17, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@sun.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 2008, at 8:55 AM, mathew wrote:
>>> The specification for URIs is RFC3986, and the specification for HTTP
>>> is RFC 2616.
>>>
>>> The previous version of the URI specification, RFC 2396, is clearer
>>> about this issue. It says:
>>
>> Quoting from the top of RFC3986: "Obsoletes: 2732, 2396, 1808 "
>
>Like I said, the previous version.
>
>> 3.4. Query
>>
>>   The query component contains non-hierarchical data that, along with
>>   data in the path component (Section 3.3), serves to identify a
>>   resource within the scope of the URI's scheme and naming authority
>>   (if any).  The query component is indicated by the first question
>>   mark ("?") character and terminated by a number sign ("#") character
>>   or by the end of the URI.
>
>Then RFC3986 contradicts RFC2616.
>
>RFC2616 section 3.2.2:
>
>   The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the HTTP
>   protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific syntax and
>   semantics for http URLs.
>
>   http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]
>
>   If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The semantics
>   are that the identified resource is located at the server listening
>   for TCP connections on that port of that host, and the Request-URI
>   for the resource is abs_path (section 5.1.2).
>
>i.e. the HTTP spec specifically says that the resource's URI does not
>include the query parameters.
>
>> For what it's worth, RFC3986 was one of the most heavily-discussed and
>> closely-examined specs in history.
>
>Apparently not examined closely enough.
>
>So, should Ruby obey the HTTP spec, or the URI spec?
>
>
>mathew


#-#-#  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

Prev Next