[#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: Strange argc check in stable snapshot

From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2005-02-23 07:14:14 UTC
List: ruby-core #4465
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Berger, Daniel wrote:

> I'm just curious why this type of thing has appeared in the latest
> stable snapshot in array.c:
> if(argc < 0){
>    rb_raise(rb_eArgError,"negative number of arguments");
> }
> Pray tell, how could argc be less than 0?

According to the gospel, demonic possession is a rather common thing, and
happen to both people and animals, so why not computers as well?

Personally, although I am officially baptised Roman-Cathodic, I prefer to
just believe some computers have bad RAM.

_____________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard -=- Montr饌l QC Canada -=- http://artengine.ca/matju



In This Thread