[#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 18:17:30 UTC
List: ruby-core #4471
Sam wrote:
> 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.

The argument value in question (in array.c) is not set by the runtime. 
It just has the same name. See my earlier post for why it has nothing to 
do with trusting the runtime.

Steve


In This Thread