[#25257] [Bug #2030] Math.gamma(x) seg faults for integer x larger than 2<<63-1 — Hiro Asari <redmine@...>
Bug #2030: Math.gamma(x) seg faults for integer x larger than 2<<63-1
[#25272] [Feature #2032] Change the license to "GPLv2+ or Ruby's original". — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...>
Feature #2032: Change the license to "GPLv2+ or Ruby's original".
Issue #2032 has been updated by Eric Hodel.
Issue #2032 has been updated by Shyouhei Urabe.
Issue #2032 has been updated by Kazuhiko Shiozaki.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Kazuhiko Shiozaki<redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
If readline's change in license is the primary reason for reevaluating
Issue #2032 has been updated by Shyouhei Urabe.
Hi,
> To avoid enbugging a new bug, we must choose the another solutions.
2010/6/6 Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org>:
(2010/06/06 20:27), Yusuke ENDOH wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 09:12, Yusuke ENDOH <mame@tsg.ne.jp> wrote:
Hi,
On Jun 14, 2010, at 22:48, Yusuke ENDOH wrote:
[#25275] Ruby platform interface — vondruch@...
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM, <vondruch@amberg.cz> wrote:
Excerpts from message of Wed Sep 02 13:03:22 +0300 2009:
[#25285] [Feature #2033] Move Core Development to Git — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>
Feature #2033: Move Core Development to Git
Issue #2033 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.
> Some commiter of Ruby live on Windows.
Jon wrote:
2009/9/4 Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org>:
Michal Suchanek wrote:
2009/9/4 Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org>:
The point I suspect that a lot of those pushing for the move to git
On Sep 4, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
Issue #2033 has been updated by Yukihiro Matsumoto.
On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19, Run Paint Run Run wrote:
>> * Opens Ruby development to a wider range of contributors. Ruby- and
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Eric Hodel<drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 19:50, Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net> wrote:
Short summary:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Ron
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 16:43, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote=
Run Paint Run Run wrote:
Ruby is a basic infrastructure that needs to be stable. If it goes as agile as
[#25306] [Feature #2034] Consider the ICU Library for Improving and Expanding Unicode Support — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>
Feature #2034: Consider the ICU Library for Improving and Expanding Unicode Support
[#25360] [Bug #2043] incompatible character encodings — Vit Ondruch <redmine@...>
Bug #2043: incompatible character encodings
[#25367] [Bug #2048] Thread#raise: Handling of Current Exception — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>
Bug #2048: Thread#raise: Handling of Current Exception
[#25394] Unmaintained code (Was: Move Core Development to Git) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
On Sep 4, 2009, at 02:16, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Eric Hodel<drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
I'll volunteer to maintain delegate.rb.
I'll volunteer to maintain English.rb and tempfile.rb.
I would gladly maintain find, observer & ostruct if that can be of any
I think that one responsibility of maintainers of a component should be
[#25420] [Bug #2054] Onigurma Isn't Documented — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>
Bug #2054: Onigurma Isn't Documented
[#25442] turning off indentation warnings — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>
Is there a way in 1.9 to turn off only indentation warnings? I like
Hi,
Hi,
On Sep 22, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Aaron Patterson wrote:
>>>> I've looked into adding a global variable. I think it looks better,
[#25506] [Bug #2072] Segmentation faults with libxml-ruby and ruby 1.9.1 — 賢司 高橋 <redmine@...>
Bug #2072: Segmentation faults with libxml-ruby and ruby 1.9.1
On Sep 9, 2009, at 11:05 PM, =E8=B3=A2=E5=8F=B8 =E9=AB=98=E6=A9=8B =
[#25540] [Bug #2095] Oniguruma No Longer Understands Unihan Characters — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>
Bug #2095: Oniguruma No Longer Understands Unihan Characters
[#25571] Implicit block argument in Procs — Cody Brocious <cody.brocious@...>
I ran into some block behavior I thought was a bit odd. Calling a
[#25587] Minimalist Ruby Install for Windows — Mike Hatfield <oakraven13@...>
Hi everyone,
[#25630] [Bug #2114] Array Hash inconsistency — Wim Yedema <redmine@...>
Bug #2114: Array Hash inconsistency
[#25632] [Bug #2117] Binding to a class, a method from the class's superclass's metaclass, fails — "Shane O'Brien" <redmine@...>
Bug #2117: Binding to a class, a method from the class's superclass's metaclass, fails
[#25634] Kernel.eval("local_variables",binding) bug in Ruby 1.9 — Howard Yeh <hayeah@...>
Hi,
[#25635] [Bug #2119] 'gem' method has problem when gems are in ~/.gem and no version requirement is given — Cezary Baginski <redmine@...>
Bug #2119: 'gem' method has problem when gems are in ~/.gem and no version requirement is given
Issue #2119 has been updated by Cezary Baginski.
[#25644] [Bug #2121] mathn/rational destroys Fixnum#/, Fixnum#quo and Bignum#/, Bignum#quo — Charles Nutter <redmine@...>
Bug #2121: mathn/rational destroys Fixnum#/, Fixnum#quo and Bignum#/, Bignum#quo
Charles Nutter wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Joel VanderWerf
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:29 AM, brian ford <brixen@gmail.com> wrote:
[#25679] Ruby 1.9 pack('m') and unpack('m') not round tripping — Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil@...>
Hello all,
[#25681] [Bug #2127] Fiber#resume - segfault inside C extension — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>
Bug #2127: Fiber#resume - segfault inside C extension
[#25709] [Bug #2131] f(not x) => syntax error — "James M. Lawrence" <redmine@...>
Bug #2131: f(not x) => syntax error
Issue #2131 has been updated by James M. Lawrence.
[#25756] syck maintenance? — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
Has anyone taken this over?
Ryan Davis wrote:
There are about 15 open issues relating to yaml/syck.
[#25764] [Proposal] Maintainer confirmation and discharging process — Yugui <yugui@...>
2009/9/25 Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@marc-andre.ca>:
Hi,
[#25769] A challenge: Enumerator#next in JRuby — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>
I have a challenge for anyone who wants to discuss, propose
For what it's worth, although solution 3 is not very pretty, it could
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
In article <f04d2210909251312q46bd51c0teacc4b0a8c417f0c@mail.gmail.com>,
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:
In article <f04d2210909252208k4fd66540u54a5d280613bb043@mail.gmail.com>,
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
[#25796] [Bug #2144] Split functionality of Float#inspect and Float#to_s — Roger Pack <redmine@...>
Bug #2144: Split functionality of Float#inspect and Float#to_s
[#25820] [Feature #2152] Split functionality of Float#inspect and Float#to_s — Roger Pack <redmine@...>
Feature #2152: Split functionality of Float#inspect and Float#to_s
Issue #2152 has been updated by Roger Pack.
Hi,
Hi,
Issue #2152 has been updated by Marc-Andre Lafortune.
> Issue #2152 has been updated by Marc-Andre Lafortune.
Hi,
Hi,
[#25831] event hook in 1.9? — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
> /**
Ryan Davis wrote:
[#25841] [ANN] Ruby Developer's Meeting 20091013 — Yugui <yugui@...>
Hi,
[#25853] [Bug #2160] JSON can't parse input where top-level object is a string — caleb clausen <redmine@...>
Bug #2160: JSON can't parse input where top-level object is a string
Issue #2160 has been updated by Tim Bray.
Tim Bray wrote:
[#25865] struggling to convince myself 1.9's constant lookup rules make any sense — "ara.t.howard" <ara.t.howard@...>
[#25876] Fate of Win32API.rb? — Jon <jon.forums@...>
Spelunking the ruby-core Nabble archives and Redmine hasn't yet shed any
Hello,
[ruby-core:25573] Re: Implicit block argument in Procs
Thanks for the quick response. If the block to 'set' is executed in the top level context, though, why is it that an explicit block argument works? It seems that unless you're passing blocks into Procs that assume no implicit block argument exists, this wouldn't change the usual behavior. On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrot= e: > Hi, > > At Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:57:14 +0900, > Cody Brocious wrote in [ruby-core:25571]: >> Is this behavior intentional? =A0If not, is there a limitation in >> rb_vm_invoke_proc() which makes passing an implicit block a problem? >> It seems that killing the arg_block check would solve the issue if >> there's no problem in rb_vm_invoke_proc(). > > Absolutely intentional. =A0`yield' calls the block given to the > context. =A0In your example, the yield in the block to `set' is > executed in the top level context, which has no block. > > -- > Nobu Nakada > >