[#19731] use of require thread safety — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...>

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but...should there be

56 messages 2008/11/08
[#19796] Re: use of require thread safety — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/11/11

Hi,

[#19798] Re: use of require thread safety — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/11/11

> While a thread is requiring a given file, another thread which

[#20732] Re: use of require thread safety — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/20

> Currently with 1.8.7 (for me) the secondmost thread continues

[#20737] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/12/20

Roger Pack wrote:

[#20769] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/12/21

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#20795] Re: use of require thread safety — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/12/22

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:05:07AM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#19821] Re: use of require thread safety — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/11/11

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:51:45AM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#19829] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/11

Paul Brannan wrote:

[#21651] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2009/01/29

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#19759] Proposal: Method#get_args — "Yehuda Katz" <wycats@...>

I'd like to propose a way to introspect into the arguments of a method

97 messages 2008/11/09
[#19787] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/11/11

The only question I have is why would one want to know the names of

[#19789] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Trans <transfire@...> 2008/11/11

On Nov 10, 7:18m, "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[#19818] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Mikael Hlund <mikael@...> 2008/11/11

Allow me to throw in my ~.116892074 DKK;

[#19837] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/11

Mikael H淡ilund wrote:

[#19838] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/11/11

[#19870] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/12

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 04:48:03AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#19874] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/11/12

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 06:01:40PM +0900, Brian Candler wrote:

[#19881] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/12

Paul Brannan wrote:

[#19887] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/11/12

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:06:15AM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#19889] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/12

Paul Brannan wrote:

[#19892] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/11/12

[#19893] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Deville <jdeville@...> 2008/11/12

> -----Original Message-----

[#19894] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/12

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 04:33:07AM +0900, Jim Deville wrote:

[#19895] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/11/12

[#19896] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/12

Jim Weirich wrote:

[#19899] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/11/12

On Nov 12, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#19915] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/13

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:02:25AM +0900, Jim Weirich wrote:

[#19927] Re: {Proc,Method}#parameters (Re: Proposal: Method#get_args) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/11/14

Hi,

[#19784] Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — Hongli Lai <hongli@...99.net>

Hi.

22 messages 2008/11/10
[#19799] Re: Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — "Narihiro Nakamura" <authornari@...> 2008/11/11

Hi.

[#19812] Re: Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — "Yehuda Katz" <wycats@...> 2008/11/11

Narihiro,

[#19823] Re: Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/11/11

Hi,

[#19845] [Bug #743] Socket.gethostbyname returns odd values — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #743: Socket.gethostbyname returns odd values

11 messages 2008/11/11

[#19846] [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #744: memory leak in callcc?

142 messages 2008/11/11
[#19945] [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <redmine@...> 2008/11/15

Issue #744 has been updated by Roger Pack.

[#19968] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/17

[#19969] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2008/11/17

At 12:54 08/11/17, Brent Roman wrote:

[#19970] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/17

[#19972] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Kurt Stephens <kurt@...> 2008/11/17

A common technique is to allocate a reasonably sized array (256-bytes)

[#20149] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/28

[#20517] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/13

> I implemented a scheme for recording the maximum depth of the C stack in

[#20534] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/13

[#20750] [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/21

[#20751] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezmobius@...> 2008/12/21

[#20752] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/21

[#20781] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/22

First thanks for doing all that hard work. I'm sure it's not pleasant

[#20783] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/22

[#20903] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/26

Seems to overall be a tidge slower for "micro" stuff--5 or 10%.

[#20914] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/27

[#20922] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/27

> You ran this benchmark suite, correct?

[#20931] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/28

[#20995] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/30

Hmm interesting.

[#21261] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Stephen Sykes" <sdsykes@...> 2009/01/11

Brent,

[#20168] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/11/30

Hi,

[#20175] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/30

The problem can be demonstrated with a very simple program (attached), and

[#20178] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/30

[#20185] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/12/01

> What I did come up with was not ugly at all. Factor the unwieldy switch

[#21394] [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <redmine@...> 2009/01/17

Issue #744 has been updated by Roger Pack.

[#21429] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/01/19

[#21441] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2009/01/19

Hi,

[#21483] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/01/21

[#21487] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Michal Babej <calcifer@...> 2009/01/21

On Wednesday 21 of January 2009 10:21:19 Brent Roman wrote:

[#21711] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/02/01

[#22062] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...> 2009/02/14

>> I've tried that myself but it didn't work very well

[#22265] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Michal Babej <calcifer@...> 2009/02/19

On Saturday 14 of February 2009 08:17:22 Roger Pack wrote:

[#21514] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/01/22

[#19938] Fibers in 1.8 — "Aman Gupta" <rubytalk@...1.net>

Are there any plans to backport Fiber to ruby 1.8?

13 messages 2008/11/15

[#20008] [Bug #766] 'Not enough space' error on windows — Ittay Dror <redmine@...>

Bug #766: 'Not enough space' error on windows

17 messages 2008/11/20

[#20092] [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Francois Proulx <redmine@...>

Bug #797: bug or feature: local method ?

23 messages 2008/11/25
[#20097] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/11/25

Hi,

[#20098] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/11/25

[#20100] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/11/25

Hi,

[#20127] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Francoys <francois.pr@...> 2008/11/26

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[ruby-core:19748] [Feature #729] curly brackets" and "begin end" blocks should behave syntactically and semantically exactly the same

From: Tomas Pospisek <redmine@...>
Date: 2008-11-08 20:08:29 UTC
List: ruby-core #19748
Feature #729: curly brackets" and "begin end" blocks should behave syntactically and semantically exactly the same
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/729

Author: Tomas Pospisek
Status: Open, Priority: Normal
Category: core

(transported over from rubyforge #16111, as I still think this would be worth while...)

Every now and then I run into a "principle of least surprise" violation wrt blocks in Ruby.

The most primitive problem i have is this: why does the following work:

  # the code below is grouped together because it represents
  # a semantic whole:
  begin
    do_something
    and_then_something_else
  end

but this here bails out with a syntax error:

  # the following code is grouped together because it represents
  # a semantic whole:
  {
    do_something
    and_then_something_else
  }

In every other language I know that has curly braces as block delimiters, the above is alowed and _natural_. Except Ruby.

The above code is a special case. I am not sure it can be fixed without breaking Ruby syntax as a whole. I _think_ it can.

To me "curly brackets" and "begin end" should act semantically and syntactically exactly the same.
I.e. all the following forms should IMHO be allowed and identical:

  if condition
  end

  if condition begin
  end

  if condition {
  }

The same would apply to all other ruby control structures.

Unfortunately it seems it is not be possible to fix the general case without breaking Ruby since Ruby expects that "condition" above could also in itself be a block since both:

  if { condition }
  end

and

  if begin condition end
  end

are allowed and make sense, but contradict my wish above, since allowing the above proposed change would actually make the syntax more ambiguous and make it _harder_ for the parser to help the programmer with syntax errors.


----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org

In This Thread

Prev Next