[#6864] ruby 1.8.4 rc breaks alias_method/rails in bad ways — "Ara.T.Howard" <ara.t.howard@...>

20 messages 2005/12/09
[#6870] Re: ruby 1.8.4 rc breaks alias_method/rails in bad ways — =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Florian_Gro=DF?= <florgro@...> 2005/12/12

Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[#6872] Re: ruby 1.8.4 rc breaks alias_method/rails in bad ways — ara.t.howard@... 2005/12/12

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, [ISO-8859-15] Florian Growrote:

[#6873] Re: ruby 1.8.4 rc breaks alias_method/rails in bad ways — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/12/12

On Dec 12, 2005, at 1:19 PM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

[#6874] Re: ruby 1.8.4 rc breaks alias_method/rails in bad ways — ara.t.howard@... 2005/12/12

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6891] Time.utc! and Time.localtime! — Daniel Hobe <hobe@...>

Writing a script yesterday I found out, much to my surprise, that the

16 messages 2005/12/14

[#6918] change to yaml in 1.8.4 — ara.t.howard@...

14 messages 2005/12/16

[#6934] 1.8.x, YAML, and release management — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>

I'm concerned that 1.8.3's acceptance of non-backwards-compatible

28 messages 2005/12/18

[#6996] Problems building 1.8.4 with VS8 C++ Express Edition (cl 14.00) — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>

Visual Studio C++ 2005 Express Edition (VS 8.0)

20 messages 2005/12/27

Re: [PATCH] Re: IO.open not calling close in block form?

From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2005-12-21 20:48:47 UTC
List: ruby-core #6972

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobuyoshi nakada [mailto:nobuyoshi.nakada@ge.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:12 PM
> To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: IO.open not calling close in block form?
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> At Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:45:35 +0900,
> Mauricio Fernandez wrote in [ruby-core:06912]:
> > What about this?
> 
> It won't work fine if closed? method is overridden.
> 
> I think the original problem posted at [ruby-dev:27156] is 
> which should be honored, a jump from the body or one from the 
> ensure clause.  Currently, this code just returns an 
> exception instead of raising it.
> 
>   def protect
>     yield
>   ensure
>     return $!
>   end
>   p protect {raise} # => RuntimeError, not `unhandled exception'

Perhaps an explicit return within an ensure clause should raise a
LocalJump error.  Or would that cause too many other issues?  It just
strikes me as an odd thing to do.

- Dan


In This Thread

Prev Next