[#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: Sam <sroberts@...>
Date: 2005-02-23 16:35:40 UTC
List: ruby-core #4469
Wrote "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com>, on Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 01:04:25AM +0900:
> > > 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().

If you don't trust your runtime, nothing is guaranteed... and you are
on a slippery slope to insanity.

> I'll pledge $100 to RubyCentral immediately if someone can actually
> demonstrate how this might occur.

On the other hand, for $100 I could use a custom version of crt1.o (the
code that calls _main), and pass in -1 as argc...

> And no, assigning a negative value to argc directly doesn't count. :-P

Would that count? ;-)

Cheers,
Sam

-- 
Sam Roberts <sroberts@certicom.com>

In This Thread