[#29270] Proposal: Module#thunk_method — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>

Many people use define_method solely so they can define a new method

13 messages 2010/04/06

[#29293] URI.(un)escape deprecated? — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@...>

Hi.

16 messages 2010/04/07
[#29366] Re: URI.(un)escape deprecated? — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2010/04/08

2010/4/7 Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@marc-andre.ca>:

[#29313] [Bug #3112] require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default — Usaku NAKAMURA <redmine@...>

Bug #3112: require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default

28 messages 2010/04/08
[#29315] [Bug #3112] require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...> 2010/04/08

Issue #3112 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.

[#29336] Re: [Bug #3112] require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2010/04/08

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:06:55PM +0900, Yui NARUSE wrote:

[#29395] [Bug #3119] [Patch] "IOError (closed stream)" error with tempfile unlink then close usage — Simon Nicholls <redmine@...>

Bug #3119: [Patch] "IOError (closed stream)" error with tempfile unlink then close usage

9 messages 2010/04/09

[#29427] [Bug #3124] SocketError on SnowLeopard (during make test-all) — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Bug #3124: SocketError on SnowLeopard (during make test-all)

10 messages 2010/04/11

[#29462] [Feature #3131] add Kernel#Hash() method like Kernel#Array() — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #3131: add Kernel#Hash() method like Kernel#Array()

10 messages 2010/04/11

[#29464] [Bug #3132] …/nokogiri-1.4.1/ext/nokogiri/nokogiri.bundle: [BUG] Bus Error — Ashley Williams <redmine@...>

Bug #3132: …/nokogiri-1.4.1/ext/nokogiri/nokogiri.bundle: [BUG] Bus Error

8 messages 2010/04/12

[#29486] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Bug #3140: gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9

102 messages 2010/04/13
[#31002] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...> 2010/07/02

Issue #3140 has been updated by Aaron Patterson.

[#31003] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/07/02

Hi,

[#31005] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...> 2010/07/02

We are about to ship a version of Ruby with a built in package manager with

[#29489] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2010/04/13

After a brief discussion with Eric Hodel about this, there are a few questions before we can figure out how to solve this:

[#29513] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2010/04/14

Is there any comment on this? This is a big bug in 1.9.2 that we'd like to get fixed as soon as we can, but I need some input on it.

[#29526] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Rich Kilmer <rich.kilmer@...> 2010/04/15

I wrote this original code in gem_prelude.

[#31104] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yusuke Endoh <redmine@...> 2010/07/07

Issue #3140 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.

[#31108] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...> 2010/07/07

> I've commited the patch to trunk.

[#31193] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/07/11

Hi,

[#31223] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...> 2010/07/12

> Roger, could you re-try to build from scratch? ould you apply

[#31215] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yehuda Katz <redmine@...> 2010/07/12

Issue #3140 has been updated by Yehuda Katz.

[#31218] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/07/12

Hi,

[#29528] [Bug #3150] net/https peer verification doesn't do anything — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #3150: net/https peer verification doesn't do anything

11 messages 2010/04/15

[#29578] [Bug #3163] SyntaxError when using variable which is also a method in current scope with a Symbol argument — Benoit Daloze <redmine@...>

Bug #3163: SyntaxError when using variable which is also a method in current scope with a Symbol argument

17 messages 2010/04/17
[#29583] [Bug #3163] SyntaxError when using variable which is also a method in current scope with a Symbol argument — caleb clausen <redmine@...> 2010/04/18

Issue #3163 has been updated by caleb clausen.

[#29641] [Feature #3176] Thread#priority= should actually do something — caleb clausen <redmine@...>

Feature #3176: Thread#priority= should actually do something

28 messages 2010/04/19

[#29710] [Bug #3185] File.expand_path repeats forward slashes at the beginning of the path — Brian Ford <redmine@...>

Bug #3185: File.expand_path repeats forward slashes at the beginning of the path

10 messages 2010/04/21

[#29835] [Bug #3212] ConditionVariable may become inconsistent for interrupted threads — Sylvain Joyeux <redmine@...>

Bug #3212: ConditionVariable may become inconsistent for interrupted threads

24 messages 2010/04/28

[#29868] [Bug:trunk] assert now passes non-boolean result — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>

Hi,

15 messages 2010/04/29

[ruby-core:29347] [Bug #1240] parser bug in 1.8.7 and 1.9.1p0

From: caleb clausen <redmine@...>
Date: 2010-04-08 17:11:12 UTC
List: ruby-core #29347
Issue #1240 has been updated by caleb clausen.


On 4/8/10, Yusuke ENDOH <mame@tsg.ne.jp> wrote:
> 2010/4/8 Caleb Clausen <vikkous@gmail.com>:
>> Wait.... please don't harden any bugs into the specification of the
>> language. If you want to say that it's too obscure/too hard to fix,
>> that's fine. WONTFIX is ok, under the circumstances. If you want to
>> say it's implementation dependent behavior, that's at least
>> acceptable. But let's not pretend that what's clearly a bug is
>> intended behavior. (Best of all would be to fix the bug, but I'm not
>> really asking for that.)
>
> You are right.  I guess it be considered as WONTFIX.

Thank you.

> BTW, how about the following? :-)
>
> # ok
> while (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((false)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> do; end
>
> # parse error
> while ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((false))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> do; end

Ooooo! Both of those don't parse right in redparse. But not for the reason you seem to expect; it's objecting to the do on its own line. That is to say, this also doesn't parse:

  while false
  do; end

Thanks for the bug. I'll fix it right away.

Taking out the newline before do makes them parse right again. (For MRI too, tho.)

Incidentally, all the ruby versions I have (1.8.6, 1.9.0, 1.9.1) also object to do after a newline. I guess this was added (relatively) recently?

> If your CPU is 64 bit, please run after 32 '(' and ')' are added :-p

This was on a 32 bit cpu. I wouldn't anticipate any problems with any number of nested parentheses. (Until, that is, you run out of memory.)

> IMHO, do_cond (omittable `do' keyword in the part of while/until/for
> constructs) brings confusion but little benefit to the Ruby syntax.
> How about removal of do_cond in 2.0?

Hear, hear! I agree wholeheartedly. (Unless there's someone out there who actually likes this? Speak now or forever hold your peace.)
----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/1240

----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org

In This Thread