[#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

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

[#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:

[#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,

[#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:19646] Re: [Feature #695] More flexibility when combining ASCII-8BIT strings with other encodings

From: "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...>
Date: 2008-10-30 22:14:21 UTC
List: ruby-core #19646
Hi,

Feature #695 was closed & marked done, but unfortunately it does not seem  
to have been implemented :-(

The request was:

> When combining 2 strings, with one being ASCII-8BIT, and the other is  
> encoding "E":
> 1) If the ASCII-8BIT string is valid if forced to encoding E, then treat  
> the ASCII-8BIT string as being in encoding E;
> 2) Otherwise treat both strings as ASCII-8BIT.
>
> Part (2) is less important, and can probably be omitted if it is hard to  
> implement.

However:

ruby -Kn -ve 'p "abc\xD8\xB5" + "abc\u0635"'
ruby 1.9.0 (2008-10-30 revision 20062) [i686-linux]
-e:1:in `<main>': incompatible character encodings: ASCII-8BIT and UTF-8  
(Encoding::CompatibilityError)

(The -Kn is only necessary here because with -e ruby uses the locale to  
determine the encoding of the string containing "\x".)
I thought this feature was implemented very quickly!

What appears to have been implemented is the encoding of "Array#pack"  
output with "U".
However, I am not totally convinced that even this was done correctly, as  
the pack output seems now to be marked UTF-8 even if the pack option  
contains a mixture of "U" with other options which then can result in an  
invalid UTF-8 string.

My feature request would mean that "pack" and "\x" string literals could  
be left as ASCII-8BIT, and be "forced" to another encoding transparently  
depending on how the programmer uses it.

You can liken this feature to the transparent conversion of an integer to  
a float when doing arithmetic.

If you agree that this is a good idea, I don't mind trying to produce a  
patch for it myself. Please let me know.

Cheers
Mike

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:53:15 +1100, Michael Selig <redmine@ruby-lang.org>  
wrote:

> Feature #695: More flexibility when combining ASCII-8BIT strings with  
> other encodings
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/695
>
> Author: Michael Selig
> Status: Open, Priority: Normal
> Category: M17N
>
> Consider the following 3 Ruby statements:
>
> # String#pack always returns ASCII-8BIT
> s1 = [97, 98, 99, 1589].pack("U*")
>
> # \xNN returns the source encoding (even if it is an invalid string), or  
> ASCII-8BIT if not set
> s2 = "abc\xD8\xB5"
>
> # \uNNNN always returns UTF-8
> s3 = "abc\u0635"
>
> All of s1, s2, and s3 have the same contents, but different encodings.  
> When you try to combine them, you get different "encoding compatibility"  
> problems, which can change depending on the source encoding, due to the  
> treatment of s2.
>
> I would like to see Ruby be able to combine all the above without error.  
> I don't think it is reasonable to have to use "force_encoding" in these  
> cases. This would
> - give better compatibility with 1.8,
> - make handling of methods returning ASCII-8BIT strings much easier (eg  
> String#pack and libraries which return strings in ASCII-8BIT because the  
> encoding is unknown)
> - reduce the confusion caused with "\x" producing a string which depends  
> on the source encoding (which I dislike - I think it should always  
> return ASCII-8BIT).
>
> So the feature request is:
>
> When combining 2 strings, with one being ASCII-8BIT, and the other is  
> encoding "E":
> 1) If the ASCII-8BIT string is valid if forced to encoding E, then treat  
> the ASCII-8BIT string as being in encoding E;
> 2) Otherwise treat both strings as ASCII-8BIT.
>
> Part (2) is less important, and can probably be omitted if it is hard to  
> implement.
>
> Thank you
> Michael Selig
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org



In This Thread