[#5563] Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>

Lately, I've been thinking about the future of ruby

44 messages 2005/08/19
[#5564] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/08/19

On 8/19/05, Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@yahoo.com> wrote:

[#5571] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/08/19

--- Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

[#5574] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — TRANS <transfire@...> 2005/08/20

Just wanted to add a few things.

[#5581] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/08/20

On 8/19/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#5583] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/08/20

Hi --

[#5585] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/08/20

--- "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

[#5609] Pathname#walk for traversing path nodes (patch) — ES <ruby-ml@...>

Here is a small addition to Pathname against 1.9, probably suited

20 messages 2005/08/22

Re: uri test failures. (Re: [ruby-cvs] ruby/lib, ruby/lib/uri: Lovely RDOC patches from mathew (metaATpoboxDOTcom) on URI/* and getoptlong.rb)

From: mathew <meta@...>
Date: 2005-08-26 19:00:04 UTC
List: ruby-core #5690
One other thing: I did definitely mention the bug fix was included in 
the patches I sent to Ryan Davis... as I wrote in my e-mail to him:

> Note that uri/ftp.rb contains the bug fix for bug 2055 on the 
> RubyForge bug tracker. It *ought* to be non-controversial, in that the 
> correct behavior is spelled out explicitly in the RFC (and cited and 
> described in the documentation); however, it's also likely to surprise 
> some people, because many people incorrectly assume that ftp URLs work 
> like http URLs.
>
> At any rate, the old behavior is still available, as the library 
> provides generic URI handling of FTP URIs, as well as FTP-specific 
> handling. People just need to call the correct method.
>
> Just didn't want to spring anything on you... The rest should be pure 
> comment changes. 


I'm not trying to sneak anything past anyone here, and apologies for 
causing test breakage.


mathew

In This Thread

Prev Next