[#25936] [Bug:1.9] [rubygems] $LOAD_PATH includes bin directory — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>

Hi,

10 messages 2009/10/05

[#25943] Disabling tainting — Tony Arcieri <tony@...>

Would it make sense to have a flag passed to the interpreter on startup that

16 messages 2009/10/05

[#26028] [Bug #2189] Math.atanh(1) & Math.atanh(-1) should not raise an error — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Bug #2189: Math.atanh(1) & Math.atanh(-1) should not raise an error

14 messages 2009/10/10

[#26222] [Bug #2250] IO::for_fd() objects' finalization dangerously closes underlying fds — Mike Pomraning <redmine@...>

Bug #2250: IO::for_fd() objects' finalization dangerously closes underlying fds

11 messages 2009/10/22

[#26244] [Bug #2258] Kernel#require inside rb_require() inside rb_protect() inside SysV context fails — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Bug #2258: Kernel#require inside rb_require() inside rb_protect() inside SysV context fails

24 messages 2009/10/22

[#26361] [Feature #2294] [PATCH] ruby_bind_stack() to embed Ruby in coroutine — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #2294: [PATCH] ruby_bind_stack() to embed Ruby in coroutine

42 messages 2009/10/27

[#26371] [Bug #2295] segmentation faults — tomer doron <redmine@...>

Bug #2295: segmentation faults

16 messages 2009/10/27

[ruby-core:25972] Re: [Feature #2131] f(not x) => syntax error

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2009-10-06 13:54:47 UTC
List: ruby-core #25972
Hi,

In message "Re: [ruby-core:25968] [Feature #2131] f(not x) => syntax error"
    on Tue, 6 Oct 2009 22:13:29 +0900, "James M. Lawrence" <redmine@ruby-lang.org> writes:

|The portion you clipped from my previous post shows that I understood
|("...different meanings inside the parens...").  Again, the change in
|meaning does not affect my point.

<snip>

I am not sure I understand your statement.  They are different.  How
that big difference does not affect your point?

Anyway, I have just tried to add a new syntax rule to make f(not x)
work as you've requested.  The naive addition cause 54 shift/reduce
conflicts.  That means either I misunderstand your statement, or your
statement was ambiguous, or your sought syntax cannot be done by yacc
parser (so that we have to move to new parser, that moving must be
huge task and cause lot of potential incompatibility).

If someone come up with concrete syntax rules, I'd re-consider.

							matz.

In This Thread