[#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-Bugs-2858 ] testing for hardlink with "test(?-, ...)" flawed on Windows

From: nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...>
Date: 2005-11-22 05:23:54 UTC
List: ruby-core #6694
Hi,

At Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:28:36 +0900,
Daniel Berger wrote in [ruby-core:06691]:
> > > If there aren't any hard links on Win9X, all I can
> > > think of is to compare the same file:
> > 
> > AFAIK, Win9X family don't support NTFS and others, which is
> > required for hard links and reparse points.  The only way I
> > thought of is to compare expanded pathes.
> 
> raise NotImplementedError unless NTFS

Why unless NTFS?  Shouldn't test(?-, f, f) return true on all
platforms and all file systems?

> Stop coddling the Windows 9x crowd.  It's dead.  Do
> you really want to have to maintain this code base in
> the future?

The previous patch is not only for Win9X.  Indeed, I agree it
would be dead platform for *development*, but still there are
some users of other DOSISH systems too.

As for Win9X, when we'll bury it, we would have to clean
win32/win32.c up first.

-- 
Nobu Nakada

In This Thread