[#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
[#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 =

[#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 =

[#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.

[#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

[#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? =A0Could 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:29865] Re: [Bug #2449] StringIO#ungetc behavior is contrary to its spec

From: "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...>
Date: 2010-04-28 22:25:22 UTC
List: ruby-core #29865
Hi,

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 23:23, Yusuke ENDOH <mame@tsg.ne.jp> wrote:
>>>> Do you mean this IO change (multiple pushbacks and behind the
>>>> beginning) should be backported to 1.8?
>>>
>>> I move this ticket to 1.8.
>>> But it may be difficult for 1.8 that uses C's stdio to implement IO.
>>
>> Yes. So I think that the following is not correct.
>>
>> | ?There is no
>> | ?limitation for multiple pushbacks including pushing back behind the
>> | ?beginning of the buffer string.
>
> The above spec is valid just for StringIO#ungetc.

I don't see the reason. As far as I understand, Matz indicated 'This
spec is right for StringIO because its the spec of IO'. The latter
part is true for 1.9, but not true for 1.8 (and must be hard to be
true as you know). So still the former part couldn't be true for 1.8.

We don't have much interest to this trivial behavior. Can't you accept
my proposal? It requires less work for changes. :-)

Regards,
// NaHi

In This Thread