[#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: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2005-02-23 22:28:56 UTC
List: ruby-core #4475
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Jenkins [mailto:steven.jenkins@ieee.org] 
<snip>
 
> What's not reasonable is saying it can't happen. It can.

Actually, this is all the more reason to use rb_scan_args() over
counting argc manually. Keep in mind that the minimum argument rule
still applies.  Say you have something like this:

rb_scan_args(argc,argv,"02",&rbVal1,&rbVal2);

If argc happens to be negative, an ArgumentError will be raised because
the mininum number of arguments has been declared to be 0.  I know this,
because I just tested it. :)

This just adds more ammunition to my previous rant, found at
http://www.livejournal.com/users/djberg96/13246.html

Yum, more ammo.
 
> But to be a good sport about it, I'll donate $100 too. Let's 
> make this 
> like a political fundraiser: $100 to participate in the thread. Any 
> takers? :-)
> 
> Steve

Nice. :)

Dan


In This Thread

Prev Next