[#28687] [Bug #2973] rb_bug - Segmentation fault - error.c:213 — rudolf gavlas <redmine@...>

Bug #2973: rb_bug - Segmentation fault - error.c:213

10 messages 2010/03/16

[#28735] [Bug #2982] Ruby tries to link with both openssl and readline — Lucas Nussbaum <redmine@...>

Bug #2982: Ruby tries to link with both openssl and readline

16 messages 2010/03/18

[#28736] [Bug #2983] Ruby (GPLv2 only) tries to link to with readline (now GPLv3) — Lucas Nussbaum <redmine@...>

Bug #2983: Ruby (GPLv2 only) tries to link to with readline (now GPLv3)

10 messages 2010/03/18

[#28907] [Bug #3000] Open SSL Segfaults — Christian Höltje <redmine@...>

Bug #3000: Open SSL Segfaults

19 messages 2010/03/23

[#28924] [Bug #3005] Ruby core dump - [BUG] rb_sys_fail() - errno == 0 — Sebastian YEPES <redmine@...>

Bug #3005: Ruby core dump - [BUG] rb_sys_fail() - errno == 0

10 messages 2010/03/24

[#28954] [Feature #3010] slow require gems in ruby 1.9.1 — Miao Jiang <redmine@...>

Feature #3010: slow require gems in ruby 1.9.1

15 messages 2010/03/24

[#29179] [Bug #3071] Convert rubygems and rdoc to use psych — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Bug #3071: Convert rubygems and rdoc to use psych

10 messages 2010/03/31

[ruby-core:28494] Re: [Feature #2759] Regexp /g and /G options

From: Caleb Clausen <vikkous@...>
Date: 2010-03-05 02:58:28 UTC
List: ruby-core #28494
On 3/4/10, NARUSE, Yui <naruse@airemix.jp> wrote:
> (2010/03/04 14:53), caleb clausen wrote:
>> It appears there is a patch already.
>
> Do you really know how the patch is?

No. Michael referred to a discussion on the japanese ML and said there
was a patch in it. As I can't understand japanese, I didn't try to
look into it further. Yusuke Endoh said:

> The reason why Ruby flavor disabled ONIG_OPTION_CAPTURE_GROUP seems:
>
>  - ONIG_OPTION_CAPTURE_GROUP is not easy to understand (even Kosako said)
>  - using both named and unnamed capture at the time is considered as bad
>    and confusing style in Ruby
>  - when it was discussed, there was no compatibility issue because there
>    was no oniguruma gem

I don't know if he was referring to that specific patch or not. I
summarized this as:

>> The objections to this feature amounted to "it's complicated for
>> users to understand and no-one needs it".

Is my summary a mischaracterization? Are there objections to the patch
beyond those above?

In This Thread