[#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: New block syntax
On Tuesday, March 22, 2005, 8:02:00 AM, Alexander wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2005, at 9:49 PM, Berger, Daniel wrote:
>> There's a fine line between terse and obfuscated, and I fear we're
>> slouching towards the latter.
> blah proc { preproc }, proc { postproc }
> looks just plain ugly imo
> anything brought in that improves
> that is nice therefore :)
blah { preproc }, { postproc }
looks equally ugly to me.
Pre- and post-processing are rare cases of method invocation, so I
don't see that they should be scrutinised in an attempt to improve
syntax.
Gavin