[#6660] Ruby on Neko ? — Nicolas Cannasse <ncannasse@...>

Hi folks,

14 messages 2005/11/19

[#6672] testing for hardlink with "test(?-, ...)" flawed on Windows — noreply@...

Bugs item #2858, was opened at 2005-11-20 16:35

13 messages 2005/11/20

[#6684] semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...>

Hi all,

81 messages 2005/11/21
[#6685] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Mauricio Fern疣dez <mfp@...> 2005/11/22

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:22:59AM +0900, Stefan Kaes wrote:

[#6686] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

Mauricio Fern疣dez wrote:

[#6687] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2005/11/22

On Nov 21, 2005, at 4:37 PM, Stefan Kaes wrote:

[#6689] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

Eric Hodel wrote:

[#6693] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/11/22

Hi,

[#6695] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#6718] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — mathew <meta@...> 2005/11/22

[#6722] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

mathew wrote:

[#6707] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/11/22

Hi --

[#6708] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

David A. Black wrote:

[#6714] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/11/22

Hi --

[#6717] Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers — Stefan Kaes <skaes@...> 2005/11/22

David A. Black wrote:

[#6798] ruby 1.8.4 preview2 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

Hi,

37 messages 2005/11/30

Re: Ruby on Neko ?

From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2005-11-21 03:42:30 UTC
List: ruby-core #6676
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:

> It's actually O(-1), so everytime you're accessing a field you're making
> a quantum leap a few CPU cycles before.

According to the theory of uncomputing, that requires an computer made of
anti-particles which are prevented from colliding with non-anti-matter
(lest both vanish in a puff of cosmic rays). Funnier things happen if you
rotate the Feynman diagram by only 90 degrees. All across the universe,
virtual pairs of computers and anti-computers materialise and
dematerialise. This violation of the Einstein's matter-energy law of
conservation is allowed by Heisenberg's time-energy law of uncertainty, as
long as those (anti)computers are very very short-lived. They are so
incredibly short-lived that they rarely have the time to perform more than
遠qrt(-1) operation before they auto-annihilate.

____________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard - t駘:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montr饌l QC Canada


In This Thread

Prev Next