[#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
Re: rehash segfault
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > Hi, > > In message "rehash segfault" > on 04/02/25, Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes: > > |I don't have a lot of information on this bug at this point, but > |figured I'd throw out what I do have, and see if it's enough to jog > |someone's brain. I'll of course continue to gather more information as > |I'm able and present it here. > | > |I have code that looks like this in my application: > | > | @cache = Set::new > | def @cache.rehash > | @hash.rehash > | end > > Ruby hashes are not completely thread-safe. I knew the problem > existed, but I couldn't fix it without significant slow-down. > Can you isolate cache access for each threads? Does this mean that some of the Hash methods are not atomic w.r.t. the thread scheduler? Which ones? It's understandable that if h[x] invokes the default proc, you lose atomicity. Are there any surprising cases?