[#4745] Win32: Ruby & APR; build problems for Ruby Subversion SWIG bindings — Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@...>

Having taken upon me the task to provide a Windows build for

24 messages 2005/04/20
[#4746] Re: Win32: Ruby & APR; build problems for Ruby Subversion SWIG bindings — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/04/20

On 4/20/05, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@gmail.com> wrote:

[#4747] Re: Win32: Ruby & APR; build problems for Ruby Subversion SWIG bindings — Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@...> 2005/04/20

Hi Austin,

[#4762] Re: Win32: Ruby & APR; build problems for Ruby Subversion SWIG bindings — nobu.nokada@... 2005/04/24

Hi,

[#4783] Re: Win32: Ruby & APR; build problems for Ruby Subversion SWIG bindings — Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@...> 2005/04/25

On 4/24/05, nobu.nokada@softhome.net <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> wrote:

[#4787] Re: Win32: Ruby & APR; build problems for Ruby Subversion SWIG bindings — nobu.nokada@... 2005/04/25

Hi,

[#4794] Re: Win32: Ruby & APR; build problems for Ruby Subversion SWIG bindings — Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@...> 2005/04/25

> > > Ruby is just using AC_TYPE_UID_T. So, using typedef for them,

[#4751] Illegal regexp causes segfault — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>

irb(main):058:0> a = /\[([^]]*)\]/

13 messages 2005/04/22

Re: want_object? - possible?

From: Mark Hubbart <discordantus@...>
Date: 2005-04-14 17:38:58 UTC
List: ruby-core #4714
On 3/24/05, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 02:38:54 +0900, Berger, Daniel
> <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> wrote:
> > I suppose there's the danger of the slippery slope, where we start
> > adding more and more context checking methods, like want_lvalue?,
> > want_rvalue?, etc, and things get out of control.
> 
> Um. I oppose this for the sole reason that it looks, smells, sounds,
> and feels far too much like wantarray from Perl. I think that is one
> of Perl's nastiest features.

I wholly agree with that. Perhaps a different name would have less
stink. "uses_return_value?", perhaps? Or maybe "needs_return_value?".
I think that's a little more descriptive, to boot; it lets you know
there's a little magic going on behind the scenes.

I am still unsure as to whether this would be a good idea, I haven't
run through all the potentials for abuse yet. And i don't know if it
would even be possible to implement.

cheers,
Mark


In This Thread

Prev Next