[#24105] [Bug #1711] Marshal Failing to Round-Trip Certain Recurisve Data Structures — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1711: Marshal Failing to Round-Trip Certain Recurisve Data Structures

9 messages 2009/07/01

[#24116] [Bug #1715] Numeric#arg for NaN is Inconsistent Across Versions — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1715: Numeric#arg for NaN is Inconsistent Across Versions

10 messages 2009/07/02

[#24240] [Bug #1755] IO#reopen Doesn't Fully Associate with Given Stream on 1.9; Ignores pos on 1.8 — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1755: IO#reopen Doesn't Fully Associate with Given Stream on 1.9; Ignores pos on 1.8

8 messages 2009/07/09

[#24321] [Bug #1773] Gem path doesn't honor user gem? — Lin Jen-Shin <redmine@...>

Bug #1773: Gem path doesn't honor user gem?

12 messages 2009/07/14

[#24390] [Feature #1784] More encoding (Big5 series) support? — Lin Jen-Shin <redmine@...>

Feature #1784: More encoding (Big5 series) support?

12 messages 2009/07/16

[#24467] Re: [ruby-cvs:31226] Ruby:r24008 (ruby_1_8_6): Removed private on to_date and to_datetime. — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hello.

10 messages 2009/07/21

[#24472] [Feature #1800] rubygems can replace system executable files — Kazuhiro NISHIYAMA <redmine@...>

Feature #1800: rubygems can replace system executable files

13 messages 2009/07/21

[#24530] [Feature #1811] Default BasicSocket.do_not_reverse_lookup to true — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Feature #1811: Default BasicSocket.do_not_reverse_lookup to true

9 messages 2009/07/23

[#24624] [Bug #1844] Immediates Should Not Respond to :dup — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1844: Immediates Should Not Respond to :dup

15 messages 2009/07/30

[ruby-core:24264] Re: [ANN] meeting log of RubyDeveloperKaigi20090622

From: "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
Date: 2009-07-11 20:06:25 UTC
List: ruby-core #24264
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> I agree pretty much across the board. I was actually hoping that
> instead of effort going into a new baked-in sqlite wrapper, that
> effort could go into new gem-based FFI sqlite wrapper, which would
> benefit many more people than baking it into Ruby 1.9.*. It is true,
> it would not benefit everyone, and even where FFI works for JRuby we
> still encourage people to use the platform-native options. But if the
> question is how to ensure sqlite remains well supported, then the
> answer is most definitely not to ship it with Ruby 1.9, since that
> just makes Ruby harder to implement on other platforms and runtimes.
> An FFI version is at least a better answer.

Some people in ruby-dev said bundle Ruby-FFI and write with it.

> To be honest, I'd prefer shipping a pure-Ruby SQL implementation that
> *everyone* can run on any platform, performance be damned. I think
> that would be the Ruby way.

If exits, this sounds the best answer :)

-- 
NARUSE, Yui  <naruse@airemix.jp>

In This Thread