[#21039] Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...>

Happy new year everyone.

94 messages 2009/01/01
[#21040] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — James Gray <james@...> 2009/01/01

On Jan 1, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21041] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — brabuhr@... 2009/01/01

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM, James Gray <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:

[#21042] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Federico Builes <federico.builes@...> 2009/01/01

brabuhr@gmail.com writes:

[#21049] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...> 2009/01/01

[#21053] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — znmeb@... 2009/01/01

Quoting Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@gmail.com>:

[#21068] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/01/02

Hi,

[#21069] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Florian Gilcher <flo@...> 2009/01/02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#21070] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2009/01/02

T24gRnJpLCBKYW4gMiwgMjAwOSBhdCAxMjoxOCBQTSwgRmxvcmlhbiBHaWxjaGVyIDxmbG9AYW5k

[#21073] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2009/01/02

My opinion:

[#21078] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Eust痃uio Rangel" <eustaquiorangel@...> 2009/01/02

My two cents:

[#21101] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...> 2009/01/03

Eust=E1quio Rangel wrote:

[#21102] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2009/01/03

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 21:40, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:

[#21104] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...> 2009/01/03

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#21106] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Giuseppe Bilotta" <giuseppe.bilotta@...> 2009/01/04

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:39 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

[#21114] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...> 2009/01/04

Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

[#21132] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...> 2009/01/05

[#21134] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2009/01/05

Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21080] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2009/01/02

On Jan 1, 2009, at 04:42 AM, Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21083] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2009/01/03

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 00:34, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

[#21089] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...> 2009/01/03

[#21147] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2009/01/05

On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 12:48:09PM +0900, Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21160] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2009/01/05

On Jan 2, 2009, at 17:25 PM, Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#21165] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2009/01/06

> I think I'm entitled to an opinion on the subject because I am a

[#21097] [Bug #977] caller for all threads patch — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #977: caller for all threads patch

15 messages 2009/01/03
[#23760] Re: [Bug #977] caller for all threads patch — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2009/06/08

I made a patch to Thread#caller(lev=1). It may be more flexible than

[#21244] [Bug #999] SSL & ZIP missing from ruby-1.9.1-preview1-i386-mswin32 — William Mason <redmine@...>

Bug #999: SSL & ZIP missing from ruby-1.9.1-preview1-i386-mswin32

14 messages 2009/01/10

[#21259] Do I need a special build arg to get irb to accept utf characters on OSX — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

I'm seeing very strange behavior at the irb prompt with ruby 1.9.1 =20

10 messages 2009/01/11

[#21310] [Bug #1008] Missing shell version of ruby-1.9 commands (gem, rake, ...) for MinGW installation — Chauk-Mean Proum <redmine@...>

Bug #1008: Missing shell version of ruby-1.9 commands (gem, rake, ...) for MinGW installation

8 messages 2009/01/13

[#21339] [Bug #1010] Ruby-1.9's rake sh doesn't work on Windows (but fix provided) — Chauk-Mean Proum <redmine@...>

Bug #1010: Ruby-1.9's rake sh doesn't work on Windows (but fix provided)

10 messages 2009/01/14

[#21399] Proposal: Module#copy_method — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>

I'd like it to be possible to copy methods from one module to another. The

38 messages 2009/01/18
[#21428] Re: Proposal: Module#copy_method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/01/19

Hi,

[#21550] [Feature #1046] request: ability to run without specifying .rb — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Feature #1046: request: ability to run without specifying .rb

13 messages 2009/01/24

[#21552] [Feature #1047] request: getters, setters for the GC — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Feature #1047: request: getters, setters for the GC

15 messages 2009/01/24

[#21613] [Bug #1063] in `write': Not enough space - <STDOUT> (Errno::ENOMEM) on Windows XP — Nick Gorbikoff <redmine@...>

Bug #1063: in `write': Not enough space - <STDOUT> (Errno::ENOMEM) on Windows XP

11 messages 2009/01/27

[#21640] [Bug #1068] Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs — James Gray <redmine@...>

Bug #1068: Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs

12 messages 2009/01/28
[#21642] Re: [Bug #1068] Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs — Ondrej Bilka <neleai@...> 2009/01/28

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 05:00:05PM +0100, James Gray wrote:

[#21663] Re: [Bug #1068] Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2009/01/29

Hi,

[#21701] [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #1081: add File::write() convenience method

34 messages 2009/01/31
[#28450] [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Yusuke Endoh <redmine@...> 2010/03/03

Issue #1081 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.

[#28455] Re: [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/03/04

Hi,

[#28472] Re: [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/03/04

Hi,

[#21702] [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #1082: add Object#singleton_class method

54 messages 2009/01/31
[#27372] [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...> 2010/01/02

Issue #1082 has been updated by Suraj Kurapati.

[#27384] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/01/04

Hi,

[#27394] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/01/04

Hi,

[#27407] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/01/05

Hi,

[#27409] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/01/05

Hi,

[#28304] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/02/23

Hi,

[ruby-core:21347] Re: Proc-as-Binding is out again?

From: Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>
Date: 2009-01-14 16:17:51 UTC
List: ruby-core #21347
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:43:45AM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> I stand by my assertion that blocks being usable as bindings is a breach  
> of trust (my locals are sacred), and should not be in the language.

For me the biggest issue isn't the breach of trust (though IMO that is
an issue), but that I have to pay a significant performance hit for a
feature that I don't even use.

The problem is that at compile-time it is impossible to know whether or
not it is legal to perform certain optimizations (those that assume
called methods do not modify or use the callee's binding), whenever
blocks are used.

Macros solve this problem quite nicely, providing a compile-time
replacement for method calls -- so that it is possible to know at
compile-time whether these optimizations are allowed.

Paul


In This Thread

Prev Next