[#4479] Requesting addition to IRB (configurable standard output) — Sascha Ebach <se@...>

Hello,

13 messages 2005/02/24
[#4482] Re: Requesting addition to IRB (configurable standard output) — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/02/25

Quoting se@digitale-wertschoepfung.de, on Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:22:34AM +0900:

[#4483] Re: Requesting addition to IRB (configurable standard output) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2005/02/25

On 24 Feb 2005, at 19:51, Sam Roberts wrote:

[#4488] Re: Requesting addition to IRB (configurable standard output) — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/02/26

Quoting drbrain@segment7.net, on Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 02:43:31AM +0900:

[#4489] Re: Requesting addition to IRB (configurable standard output) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2005/02/26

On 25 Feb 2005, at 16:03, Sam Roberts wrote:

Re: Thread-safe Ruby Status?

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2005-02-16 14:56:10 UTC
List: ruby-core #4443
Hi,

In message "Re: Thread-safe Ruby Status?"
    on Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:44:44 +0900, Vincent Isambart <vincent.isambart@gmail.com> writes:

|And regarding the thread-safeness of the interpreter itself - by that
|I mean being able to run more than one Ruby interpreter in one
|process, what is the current status?

Not quite.  Removing global variables itself is not that difficult,
only a matter of time I (or we) can spent.  But we don't have a plan
for doing it right now.  Mostly because Ruby C API assumes single
interpreter object.

							matz.

In This Thread

Prev Next