[#3861] super — ts <decoux@...>
[#3862] Marshal.dump'ing OpenStruct objects — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
Hi,
[#3881] mkdir, mkdir_p in FileUtils and mode — Florian Frank <flori@...>
Hello,
[#3907] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — Jos Backus <jos@...>
The attached patch implements IO#mode. This method returns the mode the IO
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 09:25:13AM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
Jos Backus wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:47:48AM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:40:33PM +0900, James Britt wrote:
[#3914] Pathname needs a makeover — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
[#3922] Incorrect escaping in strings produced by String::inspect — noreply@...
Bugs item #1173, was opened at 2004-12-08 17:35
[#3966] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
I still get this happening a lot with my Rubyx linux ruby script.
This is a long standing bug in Ruby, and has been reported hundreds of times
Hi,
[#3975] Patches to test/unit — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
I believe these are the minimal patches needed to make it possible to
[#3982] Win32: rb_sys_fail() - errno == 0 — Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Moin!
[#4000] 1.8.2 preview4 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Hello,
[#4009] cgi.rb -- more GET/POST stuff — mde@...26.com
First of all, I think it would be great, as Eustaquio suggests, to
GETs and POSTs are defined to be fairly different actions. I'd read
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Francis Hwang wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
First of all, the entire discussion of when GET is appropriate
mde@state26.com wrote:
[#4027] Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Moin!
Hi,
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
I'm not sure I would advocate making Ruby's grammar even more
>
Brent Roman wrote:
> Brent Roman wrote:
Brent Roman wrote:
> Florian Gross wrote:
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
[#4033] Garbage collection trouble — Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...>
Hello,
>>>>> "C" == Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> writes:
ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:
>>>>> "C" == Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> writes:
[#4040] Extensions, Internal — Jgen Mangler <juergen.mangler@...>
Hi,
Re: mkmf enhancement for Win32
Hi, At Sat, 11 Dec 2004 07:10:54 +0900, Berger, Daniel wrote in [ruby-core:03944]: > It turns out that some Win32 functions, such as AttachConsole(), are > only conditionally available, and depend on the values of specific > macros. > > From > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/winprog > /winprog/using_the_windows_headers.asp > > "Certain functions that depend on a particular version of Windows are > declared using conditional code. This enables you to use the compiler to > detect whether your application uses functions that are not supported on > its target version(s) of Windows. To compile an application that uses > these functions, you must define the appropriate macros. Otherwise, you > will receive the C2065 error message." It doesn't seem meaningful to check the compiling environment. Rather you should check the target, the environment to run that extension, no? > This will be more of an issue when 64-bit Windows becomes more popular, > though I am even hitting it currently with some of the Win32Utils > extensions I've been working on. > > Now, we could leave it up to individual extension authors to set this > themselves manually, but that's a pain, and error prone (it's easy to > forget, and some may not know to do it in the first place). I thought > it would be nice if mkmf would set it for us. So, I submit the > following patch for consideration: I guess that developers who intend to restrict the target should add such macros by themselves. -- Nobu Nakada