[#3113] Problem in RSS library, or problem in my blog :) — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I've been trying to use the new RSS library to parse a number of
7 messages
2004/07/01
[#3136] Wrong rdoc formatting in {array,pack}.c — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
7 messages
2004/07/05
[#3162] Re: [doc-patch] Wrong rdoc formatting in {array,pack}.c
— "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
2004/07/09
Hello.
[#3170] Another rdoc formatting error in array.c
— Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
2004/07/10
[#3172] Re: [doc-patch] Another rdoc formatting error in array.c
— "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
2004/07/12
Hello.
[#3141] rexml/validation/validationexception is missing. — nobu.nokada@...
Hi,
5 messages
2004/07/06
[#3154] Nonblocking socket connect - Win32 - 181 — "Jean-Francois Nadeau" <jean-francois.nadeau@...>
Hi,
4 messages
2004/07/08
[#3167] Inconsistent "call-seq" usage etc. — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
7 messages
2004/07/09
[#3168] Re: [doc] Inconsistent "call-seq" usage etc.
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/07/09
[#3171] binding a URL to a label in RDoc — Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
Hello,
6 messages
2004/07/12
[#3199] Trying to understand \G — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I'm being silly again, but I can't get \G to work with String.index. If
12 messages
2004/07/16
[#3213] Typo and grammar/style fixes for ext/win32ole/win32ole.c — Jos Backus <jos@...>
The attached patch attempts to create a more consistent style for error
4 messages
2004/07/19
[#3216] Re: Incident Analysis of the intrusion on helium.ruby-lang.org May 2004 — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Hi,
6 messages
2004/07/21
[#3228] Core support for Gems, and namespace — "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
Hi all,
21 messages
2004/07/27
[#3229] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/07/27
[#3232] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
2004/07/27
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#3233] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
2004/07/27
On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 12:48:07 AM, Luke wrote:
[#3235] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
2004/07/27
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
[#3230] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2004/07/27
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:39:08 +0900, Luke A. Kanies <luke@madstop.com> wrote:
[#3234] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
2004/07/27
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Austin Ziegler wrote:
[#3238] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2004/07/27
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:14:29 +0900, Luke A. Kanies <luke@madstop.com> wrote:
[#3243] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
2004/07/28
On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 3:23:46 AM, Austin wrote:
[#3248] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2004/07/28
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:29:53 +0900, Gavin Sinclair
[#3249] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
2004/07/28
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:29:53AM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
[BUG] Ruby doesn't ignore Byte Order Mark when run with -Ku
From:
Florian Groß <florgro@...>
Date:
2004-07-18 16:40:17 UTC
List:
ruby-core #3208
Moin!
I created a file utf8.rb with this content:
C:\>ruby -e "p File.read('utf8.rb')"
"\357\273\277puts \"Hello World\""
The "\357\273\277" part is the Byte Order Mark for UTF-8, my editor
automatically put it at the beginning of the file, because I saved it as
UTF-8. I think that many editors will do this so that they can later
recognize whether the file is encoded in UTF-8 or something else.
See http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/utf_bom.html#BOM for further
explanation of the BOM and what it is used for.
However Ruby doesn't treat it as a signature which means that it isn't
ignored. If I try to execute the file I get this:
C:\>ruby -Ku utf8.rb
utf8.rb:1: undefined method `ツエ笊冷柏puts' for main:Object (NoMethodError)
I think that Ruby should just ignore a BOM if it occurs at the beginning
of a script, because in most editors it will not be shown and perhaps
automatically be attached to the file. (I think that it would confuse
users if they don't see the BOM, but if Ruby sees it.)
Regards,
Florian Gross