[#4065] Surprise in Time#sec — Steven Jenkins <steven.jenkins@...>
This bit me:
[#4067] Segfault in Thread#initialize / caller — Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Moin!
[#4076] Ruby/DL — Jamis Buck <jamis_buck@...>
I recently used Ruby/DL to create bindings to the SQLite3 embedded
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 02:53:49AM +0900, Jamis Buck wrote:
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:05:48AM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:10:34AM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:57:57PM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:06:16AM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
ts wrote:
[#4116] Test::Unit::Collector::Dir won't work with code that modifies $LOAD_PATH — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Any test code that depends upon modifications of $: fails when used
Hi,
On 11 Jan 2005, at 04:14, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005, at 09:39, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:06:10 +0900, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:48:58 -0500, Nathaniel Talbott
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:17:14 -0500, Nathaniel Talbott
[#4146] The face of Unicode support in the future — Charles O Nutter <headius@...>
Hello Rubyists!
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:53:48PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:35PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
[#4189] Authenticated proxy support for open-uri — Neil Kohl <nakohl@...>
Hello!
[#4232] Carriage return on shebang — Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Moin.
[#4242] tracer.rb: Do not list pseudo source lines of binary extensions — Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Moin.
[#4243] Patch that enables https in open-uri.rb — Michael Neumann <mneumann@...>
Hi,
In article <41E93F42.9090705@ntecs.de>,
Tanaka Akira wrote:
[#4269] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Wes Nakamura <wknaka@...>
Hi,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
[#4296] parse_c.rb: allow whitespace after function names — Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@...>
Hi,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> [2005-01-21 17:43]:
[#4311] RFE: Enumerable#group_by, Array#^ — Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Moin.
[#4323] test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception in a test method, as follows.
In article <87is5jb46q.fsf@serein.a02.aist.go.jp>,
On 9/1/06, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:
On Sep 2, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
In article <A604C0B3-95ED-4B9B-866C-79A2C7D5E3C4@segment7.net>,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 9:39 PM, Tanaka Akira wrote:
In article <622DAC7E-55DB-4854-B82B-A037CE9C75EF@segment7.net>,
In article <87ac5hv4bo.fsf@fsij.org>,
On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:21 AM, Tanaka Akira wrote:
[#4332] IO#clearerr missing in action — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
I wanted to implement tail(1) in ruby cleanly, but found the best I
[#4335] When will Object#type disappear? — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Hi --
Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes?
nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
> Hi,
Moin.
> At Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:02:41 +0900,
> Florian Growrote in [ruby-core:04027]:
>
>>On the ruby-muse mailing list which is a place for discussion of new
>>ideas for Ruby there recently was a sub-thread concerning the
>>introduction of user-defined number literal suffixes. These suffixes are
>>already used in other languages and look like 1.5f or 0.6r. I think
>>having these would be nice for user-defined numeric Classes like
>>Rational (currently these overload 1/2 under mathn and other operations
>>which can be a problem) and imaginary numbers (via the Complex class). I
>>think being able to write 0.5r instead of the much longer
>>Rational.reduce(1, 2), 2i instead of Complex.new(2, 1) or 5.1b instead
>>of BigDecimal.new("5.1") would be a nice thing that would not have many
>>downsides.
>
> As for Rational, almost cannot be represented in that way.
I'm not sure about what you mean. Why would it not make sense to
represent Rationals as 0.5R? (which is equivalent to 5/10 or 1/2)