[#2529] concerns about Proc,lambda,block — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Hi --
39 messages
2004/03/01
[#2531] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/03/01
>>>>> "D" == David A Black <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
[#2533] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
2004/03/01
Hi --
[#2537] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/03/01
Hi,
[#2540] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
2004/03/02
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:44:25 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2546] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/03/02
Hi,
[#2552] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— Jim Freeze <jim@...>
2004/03/03
On Wednesday, 3 March 2004 at 8:00:09 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2553] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/03/03
[#2556] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/03/03
Hi,
[#2542] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
2004/03/02
[#2545] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/03/02
Hi,
[#2550] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
2004/03/03
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:51:10AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2561] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/03/04
Hi,
[#2563] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/03/04
[#2568] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
2004/03/04
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2570] Re: concerns about Proc,lambda,block
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/03/04
Hi,
[#2575] Comment football being played... with lib/test/unit.rb — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
[Resent because I accidentally signed it the first time]
4 messages
2004/03/04
[#2577] problem with Net::HTTP in 1.8.1 — Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
Hello,
6 messages
2004/03/04
[#2578] Re: problem with Net::HTTP in 1.8.1
— nobu.nokada@...
2004/03/05
Hi,
[#2582] One more proc question — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Sorry about this... :)
9 messages
2004/03/05
[#2584] Re: One more proc question
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/03/05
Hi,
[#2585] Re: One more proc question
— Jim Freeze <jim@...>
2004/03/05
On Friday, 5 March 2004 at 12:52:15 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#2586] Re: One more proc question
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/03/05
Hi,
[#2588] Duck typing chapter — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I've posted a rough first pass at a chapter about duck typing (and
7 messages
2004/03/05
[#2606] Thought about class definitions — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
If we allowed
2 messages
2004/03/09
[#2628] YAML complaint while generating RDoc — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
With the latest CVS, I get
9 messages
2004/03/10
[#2640] patch to tempfile.rb to handle ENAMETOOLONG — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
6 messages
2004/03/11
[#2644] RDoc proporsal — "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
Hi, rubyists.
6 messages
2004/03/11
[#2646] Problems rdoc'ing cvs... — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
I have just done
11 messages
2004/03/11
[#2647] Re: Problems rdoc'ing cvs...
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/03/11
[#2649] Re: Problems rdoc'ing cvs...
— Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
2004/03/11
On Friday, March 12, 2004, 4:15:42 AM, Dave wrote:
[#2650] Re: Problems rdoc'ing cvs...
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/03/11
[#2666] Re: Problems rdoc'ing cvs...
— Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
2004/03/16
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#2661] Pathological slowdown in 1.8 — Ryan Davis <ryand@...>
Hi all,
5 messages
2004/03/15
[#2697] lib/ruby/1.9/yaml.rb:193: [BUG] Segmentation fault — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
8 messages
2004/03/26
[#2705] Re: lib/ruby/1.9/yaml.rb:193: [BUG] Segmentation fault
— why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>
2004/03/28
Mauricio Fern疣dez wrote:
[#2706] Re: lib/ruby/1.9/yaml.rb:193: [BUG] Segmentation fault
— Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
2004/03/28
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 09:42:42AM +0900, why the lucky stiff wrote:
[#2703] Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb — Daniel Hobe <daniel@...>
This patch adds support to Net::POP for doing POP over SSL. Modeled on how
19 messages
2004/03/27
[#2704] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb
— Daniel Hobe <daniel@...>
2004/03/27
This is v2 of the patch. Cleaned up a bit and added some more docs.
[#2707] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb
— Daniel Hobe <daniel@...>
2004/03/28
v3 of the patch:
[#2721] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb
— Minero Aoki <aamine@...>
2004/03/30
Hi,
[#2722] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb
— Daniel Hobe <daniel@...>
2004/03/30
I agree that there are a lot of arguments to #start, but I think it is the
[#2723] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb
— Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
2004/03/30
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:24:17 +0900, Daniel Hobe wrote:
[#2728] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb
— "Daniel Hobe" <daniel@...>
2004/03/31
[#2733] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb
— Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
2004/04/01
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:27:31 +0900, Daniel Hobe wrote:
[#2740] Re: Proposed patch to add SSL support to net/pop.rb
— Eivind Eklund <eivind@...>
2004/04/02
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 04:05:06PM +0900, Minero Aoki wrote:
[#2709] typos in lib/singleton.rb — Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
Hello,
4 messages
2004/03/28
[#2713] more spelling and grammar fixes — Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
Hello,
7 messages
2004/03/29
[#2714] Re: more spelling and grammar fixes
— "Zachary P. Landau" <kapheine@...>
2004/03/29
> Hello,
[#2716] Re: more spelling and grammar fixes
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2004/03/29
Hi,
Re: Bugs in source: nightly-snapshot
From:
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Date:
2004-03-01 11:07:24 UTC
List:
ruby-core #2528
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Dave Thomas wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2004, at 11:26, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
> > RDoc failure in ./lib/ruby/1.9/rss/rexmlparser.rb at or around line 44
> > column 29
>
> Thanks for the report - fixed.
>
> However, it also looks as if you're running RDOc on the installed
> libraries. You'd be better off running it on the original source files:
> that way you'd get the benefit of the .document files guiding the
> process a bit.
OK, thanks, I'll have to refresh my understanding of all this, I was
not aware of .document files.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave
>
Thank you,
Hugh
>
>