[#35027] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4352][Open] [patch] Fix eval(s, b) backtrace; make eval(s, b) consistent with eval(s) — "James M. Lawrence" <redmine@...>

Bug #4352: [patch] Fix eval(s, b) backtrace; make eval(s, b) consistent with eval(s)

16 messages 2011/02/01

[#35114] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4373][Open] http.rb:677: [BUG] Segmentation fault — Christian Fazzini <redmine@...>

Bug #4373: http.rb:677: [BUG] Segmentation fault

59 messages 2011/02/06

[#35171] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4386][Open] encoding: directive does not affect regex expressions — mathew murphy <redmine@...>

Bug #4386: encoding: directive does not affect regex expressions

9 messages 2011/02/09

[#35237] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4400][Open] nested at_exit hooks run in strange order — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Bug #4400: nested at_exit hooks run in strange order

12 messages 2011/02/15

[ruby-core:35254] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4400] nested at_exit hooks run in strange order

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2011-02-15 14:47:58 UTC
List: ruby-core #35254
Hi,

In message "Re: [ruby-core:35252] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4400] nested at_exit hooks run in strange order"
    on Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:32:39 +0900, SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> writes:
|
|(2011/02/15 20:25), Motohiro KOSAKI wrote:
|> ko1, what do you think?
|
|I don't have any idea about it.  However, I think it should be a
|specification issue == Matz issue.

OK, I choose C's behavior.  Although I don't recommend to rely too
much on the atexit order.  Motohiro, could you check in?

							matz.

In This Thread