[#4522] Undefined Errno::EPROTO and the like raises NameError — "Florian Frank" <flori@...>
Hi,
[#4533] giving acces readline to rl_line_buffer — "Cs. Henk" <csaba-ml@...>
Hi!
[#4548] Ruby 1.8.2 array of hash entries functions incorrectly — noreply@...
Bugs item #1613, was opened at 2005-03-09 19:49
[#4561] rb_reg_quote weirdness — Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-core@...>
(Two weirdnesses in one day.)
Hi,
[#4567] Immutable Ropes — Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-core@...>
Note how I didn't write "Immutable Strings" in the subject.
[#4575] Allowing "?" in struct members — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
[#4587] 0**0==1? — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Hi,
[#4595] New block syntax — Daniel Amelang <daniel.amelang@...>
I'm really sorry if this isn't the place to talk about this. I've
Daniel Amelang wrote:
Hi --
On Monday 21 March 2005 16:17, David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
Hey David, I think that we've had some misunderstandings due to
Hi --
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 20:55, David A. Black wrote:
On Sunday 20 March 2005 21:31, Daniel Amelang wrote:
[#4601] Re: New block syntax — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
> -----Original Message-----
[#4611] want_object? - possible? — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
[#4619] Re: want_object? - possible? — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
--- nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
Hi --
On 3/24/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
On 4/14/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2005, at 22:20, Mark Hubbart wrote:
On 4/15/05, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
[#4622] tempfile.rb — Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@...>
Hi,
[#4648] about REXML::Encoding — speakillof <speakillof@...>
Hi.
On Thursday 31 March 2005 09:44, speakillof wrote:
Hi.
I've tested, applied, and committed your Encoding patch, Nobu.
Hi,
Re: rb_reg_quote weirdness
Quoting mailing-lists.ruby-core@rawuncut.elitemail.org, on Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:26:12PM +0900:
> * Sam Roberts (Mar 15, 2005 13:00):
> > > > My documentation for Regexp::quote(str) says that a copy of str is
> > > > returned, yet if str doesn't contain any metacharacters, str itself
> > > > is returned.
>
> > > For efficiency, avoiding unnecessary copy is sought. For
> > > consistency, and safety (from in-place string modification), all
> > > time copy is better. I chose the former. But I'm still open for
> > > input.
>
> > I think your choice is right. If people want to duplicate the string,
> > they can do str.quote.copy, or something.
>
> You mean Regexp.quote(str).dup
>
> It's of course a problem having to decide whether the dup is necessary
> or not. What if there was a need for some quoting and the return-value
> of Regexp::quote actually is freshly allocated?
But not an unsolvable problem. If you really need a copy (despite that
it is inefficient), but don't want to be so inefficient as to create an
unnecessary copy:
def Regexp.quote_dup(s)
q = Regexp.quote(s)
if q.equal?(s)
q.dup
else
q
end
end
Cheers,
Sam