[#3907] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — Jos Backus <jos@...>

The attached patch implements IO#mode. This method returns the mode the IO

17 messages 2004/12/06
[#3909] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — nobu.nokada@... 2004/12/07

Hi,

[#3910] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2004/12/07

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 09:25:13AM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

[#3925] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — James Britt <ruby@...> 2004/12/09

Jos Backus wrote:

[#4009] cgi.rb -- more GET/POST stuff — mde@...26.com

First of all, I think it would be great, as Eustaquio suggests, to

17 messages 2004/12/23
[#4016] Re: [PATCH] cgi.rb -- more GET/POST stuff — Francis Hwang <sera@...> 2004/12/24

GETs and POSTs are defined to be fairly different actions. I'd read

[#4027] Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...>

Moin!

35 messages 2004/12/27
[#4070] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — nobu.nokada@... 2005/01/02

Hi,

[#4072] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/02

[#4079] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/01/03

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#4081] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/03

[#4082] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/01/03

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#4084] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2005/01/04

I'm not sure I would advocate making Ruby's grammar even more

[#4086] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/04

[#4033] Garbage collection trouble — Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...>

Hello,

13 messages 2004/12/27

Error handling in file related methods?

From: Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
Date: 2004-12-10 16:21:50 UTC
List: ruby-core #3943
Hi!

I wonder what the "philosophy" is regarding error handling in file 
related methods in Ruby. Let me give an example. It is the method
Kernel.test(?-, ...), i.e. a test to see if two files are hard links
to the same file:

     $ mkdir subdir
     $ touch subdir/aaa
     $ ln subdir/aaa subdir/bbb
     $
     $ chmod 0755 subdir
     $ ruby -e 'p test(?-, *ARGV)' subdir/aaa subdir/bbb
     true
     $
     $ chmod 0 subdir
     $ ruby -e 'p test(?-, *ARGV)' subdir/aaa subdir/bbb
     false                    <--- NOTE THIS !!!
     $

The "problem" with this behaviour is that the files *are* hard links
but the permissions prevents us from finding that out. I think it
would be better to get an exception indicating that, instead of
"lying" to the script.

I suspect that Ruby behaves in this way in several similar situations.

Should this be changed?
If so, what would be the preferred action?

/Johan Holmberg


In This Thread

Prev Next