[#2320] Problems in mathn, rational, complex, matrix — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
I received a message from Richard Graham mentioning a problem in the
[#2346] Patch for socket.c: control reverse lookup for every instance — Thomas Uehlinger <uehli@...>
Hi all
[#2357] Use the BasicSocket#do_not_reverse_lookup flag in Webrick — Thomas Uehlinger <uehli@...>
Hi
[#2367] Standard libraries — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
From ruby-dev summary:
Hi,
Hi,
By the way, this issue is about a matter of taste, so the debate is somewhat
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 02:58:22PM +0900, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, 8:18:32 PM, Mauricio wrote:
On Thursday 12 February 2004 04:37, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
On Friday, February 13, 2004, 12:44:15 AM, Sean wrote:
(Dave Thomas: there's a question for you in the second paragraph; if you're
[#2397] PATCH: deprecate cgi-lib, getopts, importenv, parsearg from standard library — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Index: cgi-lib.rb
* Gavin Sinclair (gsinclair@soyabean.com.au) wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, 11:39:37 PM, E wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
[#2422] Re: [ruby-cvs] ruby: * lib/ftools.rb: documented — "U.Nakamura" <usa@...>
Hello,
[#2449] make install not getting through rdoc phase — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Hi --
[#2465] PATCH: OpenStruct#initialize to yield self — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
This is a common approach I use to object initialization; I don't know
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:42:00 +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > As more general suggestion. Could 'new' yield the new object is a block
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:24:31 +0900, Carlos wrote:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On Feb 20, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
[#2494] rehash segfault — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
I don't have a lot of information on this bug at this point, but
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:30:54AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2504] foldl and foldr — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Sorry if I'm opening old wounds; I have a hard time believing that nobody has
RCR Mailing List
This post is primarily directed to Matz, but is posted here for everyone to consider. A few months ago it became clear to me that there was a need in the Ruby community for a forum dedicated to Ruby related suggestions and RCR discussions. Since then I've been pursuing this effort. The central goal is to setup a recognized mailing list for the task. There are numerous examples in the ruby-talk archives indicating a need for such a focused forum, but one in particular, I beleive, exemplifies it: Hal's comments on the the proper content of ruby-talk: 87825. In this message Hal lists items he felt were appropriate and not appropriate to the list. Of course, since Hal felt the inappropriate items were undesirable, he worded those items in a negative manner. But if you consider these items in a more positive light it becomes clear that the primary distinction Hal is making is percisely the distinction between "applicative" discussion and "theoretical" discussion. On the whole, I think, this is a widely held opinion. So it is my hope to create a dedicated forum for these more theoretical discussions. This forum would allow for deeper exploration of suggestive ideas for Ruby, and by extension reduce the quanity and improve the quality of RCRs that are ultimately submitted to RCRchive. But in order for this forum to really work it will require at least some basic backing from the core Ruby community. I have submitted a project proposal to RubyForge, called RCR Foundry, that would host the list. Tom Copeland and the rest of crew at RubyForge informed me that they appreciate my pursuit, but they could not support the project without approval from either David Black or Matz. I talked to David, and though he says he is not convinced of the forums need, he leaves it to others to decide if it is worth pursuing. I hope that you and the rest of the community, even if not wholly convinced, will at least lend your support to giving this forum a chance to prove its potential. Thanks, T.