[#4076] Ruby/DL — Jamis Buck <jamis_buck@...>

I recently used Ruby/DL to create bindings to the SQLite3 embedded

40 messages 2005/01/03
[#4096] Re: Ruby/DL — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2005/01/04

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 02:53:49AM +0900, Jamis Buck wrote:

[#4099] Re: Ruby/DL — ts <decoux@...> 2005/01/04

>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:

[#4119] Re: Ruby/DL — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2005/01/05

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:05:48AM +0900, ts wrote:

[#4120] Re: Ruby/DL — ts <decoux@...> 2005/01/05

>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:

[#4125] Re: Ruby/DL — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2005/01/05

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:10:34AM +0900, 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

10 messages 2005/01/05

[#4146] The face of Unicode support in the future — Charles O Nutter <headius@...>

Hello Rubyists!

47 messages 2005/01/06
[#4152] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/01/07

Hi,

[#4167] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...> 2005/01/09

Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:

[#4175] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/01/10

Hi,

[#4186] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2005/01/11

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:53:48PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#4192] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/01/12

Hi,

[#4269] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Wes Nakamura <wknaka@...>

19 messages 2005/01/18
[#4270] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/01/18

Hi,

[#4275] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Wes Nakamura <wknaka@...> 2005/01/19

[#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.

14 messages 2005/01/27
[#8773] Re: test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2006/09/02

In article <87is5jb46q.fsf@serein.a02.aist.go.jp>,

[#8776] Re: test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception — "Nathaniel Talbott" <ntalbott@...> 2006/09/03

On 9/1/06, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:

[#8777] Re: test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/09/03

On Sep 2, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:

Re: Error handling in file related methods?

From: Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
Date: 2005-01-04 12:34:16 UTC
List: ruby-core #4091
Hi !

A while ago I asked the questions below, and got no answer at all.

Depending on the answer, I was prepared to try sending in 
some patches to help improve Ruby. But now I don't know what to 
do.

/Johan Holmberg


On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Johan Holmberg wrote:
>
> 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