[#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: Steven Jenkins <steven.jenkins@...>
Date: 2005-02-23 07:53:16 UTC
List: ruby-core #4466
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> In message "Re: Strange argc check in stable snapshot"
>     on Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:58:46 +0900, "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> writes:
> 
> |I'm just curious why this type of thing has appeared in the latest
> |stable snapshot in array.c:
> 
> Right.  It is unnecessary check.  Thank you.

Maybe a good idea nonetheless. It might catch a bug someday. Nothing 
*guarantees* that argc is nonnegative, not even for main().

Steve

In This Thread

Prev Next