[#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: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2005-01-04 15:05:41 UTC
List: ruby-core #4093
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 01:21:50 +0900, Johan Holmberg <holmberg@iar.se> wrote:
> 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?

I don't know what the preferred action would be on this, Johan -- I
don't actually use Kernel#test. However, ?- is doing the same as
bash's -ef test:

  [ subdir/aaa -ef subdir/bbb ] && echo true || echo false

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

In This Thread

Prev Next