[#68137] improve semantics of manpages — "Anthony J. Bentley" <anthony@...>
Hi,
1 message
2015/02/17
[#68144] Re: Future of test suites for Ruby — Anthony Crumley <anthony.crumley@...>
FYI...
4 messages
2015/02/17
[#68343] [Ruby trunk - Bug #10916] [Open] What the Ruby? SegFault? — ruby@...
Issue #10916 has been reported by why do i need this acct just to create a bug report.
5 messages
2015/02/27
[#68373] Re: [Ruby trunk - Bug #10916] [Open] What the Ruby? SegFault?
— "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@...>
2015/03/02
> * Author: why do i need this acct just to create a bug report
[#68358] [Ruby trunk - Bug #10902] require("enumerator") scans LOAD_PATH 2x on every invocation — ruby@...1.net
Issue #10902 has been updated by Aman Gupta.
3 messages
2015/02/28
[ruby-core:68049] Question about Array#pack and bignums
From:
Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
Date:
2015-02-06 17:23:54 UTC
List:
ruby-core #68049
Hi,
Between 1.8 and 1.9 it looks like there was a behavior change with
Array#pack and values that are too large for the directive in question. I
just wanted to make sure that this was expected behavior.
# For example:
[2**65].pack("I")
Ruby 1.8 raised a RangeError here, while Ruby 1.9 and later returns
"\x000\x000\x000\x00".
Is this deliberate?
Thanks,
Dan