[#28561] Ruby::DL vs Ruby::FFI — Aston <blackapache512-ticket@...>

Ruby.DL and FFI libraries are great for programmers like me who are not internet programmers, but are more interested in scientific and number processing etc.

11 messages 2010/03/08

[#28686] trunk (26947) build fail with msys/mingw/vista — Jon <jon.forums@...>

I get the following build failure when msysgit's "c:\git\cmd" dir is on PATH.

8 messages 2010/03/16

[#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:28621] Re: [Bug #1893] Recursive Enumerable#join is surprising

From: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@...>
Date: 2010-03-12 02:53:11 UTC
List: ruby-core #28621
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ruby-core:28439] Re: [Bug #1893] Recursive Enumerable#join is urprising"
> n Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:16:48 +0900, Yusuke ENDOH <mame@tsg.ne.jp> writes:
>
> |At least, the change seems to actually cause compatibility issue
> |in real world. hould we fix or revert anyway?
>
> We should do something:
>
> a) revert and remove Enumerable#join altogether, leaving Array#join.
> b) make Enumerable#join not to join recursively; I think Array#join
> should remain recursive join for array elements.
>
> Which do you guys prefer?  don't disclose my preference now, since
> disclosing mine would have too much impact on discussion.

I prefer (b). Enumerable#join is a welcome new feature; let's keep it.

But, let's not break old objects which don't expect to be destructured
into arrays when they are joined.

jeremy

In This Thread