[#3479] Missing .document files for ext/ libraries — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
The ri documentation for zlib, strscan and iconv doesn't get built by 'make
On Wednesday, October 6, 2004, 11:18:33 PM, Brian wrote:
Just been building CVS head and was surprised at how long it now takes
On Die, 2004-10-19 at 16:47, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#3484] compilation error — Wybo Dekker <wybo@...>
In the current cvs I get, on make:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 07:21:28AM +0900, Wybo Dekker wrote:
[#3486] Location of missing end — Markus <markus@...>
Over the past week or so there has been a thread on ruby-talk ("Quality
[#3492] Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch — Markus <markus@...>
> In message "Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch"
Hi,
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 16:16, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On Monday 11 October 2004 08:09 pm, Markus wrote:
Hi,
On Monday 11 October 2004 09:38 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#3517] Kernighan & Richie ---> prototypes ? — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
[#3523] segfault in ruby-1.8.2p2 — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
I can reliably get ruby-1.8.2p2 to segfault on my system, which is:
[#3538] TCPSocket.new(host, port).readline hangs on Windows — Jos Backus <jos@...>
With recent CVS versions (both ruby_1_8 branch and HEAD), the following
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 07:43:31AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#3551] ubygems missing? — "trans. (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
I've never been one for compiling code, so I bet this is a simple fix, but
[#3561] 1.8.2 - what can we do to help? — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Folks:
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2004, at 9:55 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 06:11, Francis Hwang wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 08:51 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#3573] Small issues with Symbols — Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Moin!
[#3590] Re: Bug tracking project on RubyForge... — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
> -----Original Message-----
Sure...
Hi,
[#3596] Float and Bignum — "trans. (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Hi all,
Hi,
On Thursday 28 October 2004 02:00 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#3600] Ruby Vs. ... might find comparison of interest. — "trans. (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
[#3610] Tadayoshi Funaba's Date2 — "trans. (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Tadayoshi Funaba has a lib on RAA called Date2, the additions/improvements to
Hi --
On Friday 29 October 2004 07:03 am, David A. Black wrote:
[#3611] Memory leak in ruby_1_8 — David Ross <dross@...>
Hello,
[#3617] TEST BUG — noreply@...
Bugs item #1000, was opened at 2004-10-28 09:12
[#3638] Ruby, pthreads, and HPUX 11 — Jamis Buck <jgb3@...>
I'm finally trying to delve into the issue of Ruby not compiling
>>>>> "J" == Jamis Buck <jgb3@email.byu.edu> writes:
[#3655] autoload — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch
> In message "Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch"
> on Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:38:39 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
>
> |I haven't settled my opinion about this patch. Surely this is a
> |interesting change, but has some concerns.
*smile* agreed on both counts.
As I've stated several times, I'm not arguing for this as a change
at this time--it is an exploration, and an unproven one at that. It is
not (IMHO) RCR-ready yet.
The main value initial--letting people extend things to suit
themselves rather than lobbying for changes in the core classes might be
obtained even if it were never "accepted"; anyone who wanted to argue
for a change could prototype it with this patch as a step in
demonstrating how their idea would work (I'm thinking of the
Associations class idea, and some of the people who are playing with
ranges). Prototyping in this way might help people find the weaknesses
in their ideas (I know it does for me).
> * This patch makes difficult to add new operators in the language in
> the future. For example, I might feel like to add '->' behave as
> lambda as in Perl6.
I wasn't familiar with the '->' in perl6, but was guessing it was
something like the trick in scheme. When I went to look it up, I
noticed that perl6 also has user defined operators of arbitrary
precedence--or will, if/when it finally comes out ("operator
subroutines" in http://dev.perl.org/perl6/apocalypse/A06.html). I'm not
thrilled with Larry's design at first glance, but that just may be
overspill from the fact that I find perl cluttered in the first place.
But still I found it amusing.
I don't think the patch would make it any harder to add operators
in the future--any more than user defined methods make it harder to add
methods. In a way, it might make it easier, since they could be written
in ruby.
What it would make harder is "pseudo-operators" such as "<<" (in
the class & here-doc contexts) which are more reserved words that
operators; those could get even messier to add than they already are.
-- Markus