[#4654] signleton_methods / methods / public_methods - weirdness? — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
[#4666] Getting a hex representation for a Numeric — "Zev Blut" <rubyzbibd@...>
Hello,
[#4670] ruby 1.8.3 preview1 plan — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Hi,
[#4690] test failures for stable-snapshot 09/04/2005 — noreply@...
Bugs item #1762, was opened at 10-04-2005 20:46
Hello.
[#4709] BNF-like grammar specified DIRECTLY in Ruby — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>
Hello everybody,
[#4712] Segfault in zlib? — Nathaniel Talbott <ntalbott@...>
I'm using rubyzip (latest gem version) and zlib (1.2.2) to do a bunch
[#4736] Trivial speedup in Array#zip — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
[#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
On 4/20/05, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Austin,
Hi,
On 4/24/05, nobu.nokada@softhome.net <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> wrote:
Hi,
> > > Ruby is just using AC_TYPE_UID_T. So, using typedef for them,
Hi,
On 4/26/05, nobu.nokada@softhome.net <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> wrote:
As promised, I attached a patch to eliminate the compile problems
Hi,
Thanks for the quick response!
Hi,
On 5/14/05, nobu.nokada@softhome.net <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> wrote:
[#4751] Illegal regexp causes segfault — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
irb(main):058:0> a = /\[([^]]*)\]/
Andrew Walrond, April 22:
In article <200504221210.38231.andrew@walrond.org>,
>>>>> "T" == Tanaka Akira <akr@m17n.org> writes:
[#4774] enhanced $0 modification — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...>
The attached patch allows for ruby to use more of the available stack
Hi,
[#4775] profiler.rb Schroedinbug — C Erler <erlercw@...>
A ruby program with the single instruction "require 'profile'"
>A ruby program with the single instruction "require 'profile'"
[#4807] Re: -Wall — Vincent Isambart <vincent.isambart@...>
> Why does ruby build without -Wall in CFLAGS by default? -Wall can help to
[#4815] Re: -Wall — nobu.nokada@...
Hi,
Re: want_object? - possible?
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