[#7043] RUBYOPT versioning? — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...>
Matz, others:
[#7050] RDoc patches for BigDecimal in Ruby CVS — mathew <meta@...>
Now that 1.8.4 is out and the initial flurry of problem reports has died
[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in
Hi,
On 05/01/06, nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@ge.com> wrote:
On 06/01/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 09/01/06, nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@ge.com> wrote:
[#7057] 64-bit Solaris READ_DATA_PENDING Revisited — Steven Lumos <steven@...>
[#7078] CRC - a proof-of-concept Ruby compiler — Anders Hkersten <chucky@...>
Hello everyone,
[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)
Hi,
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
Daniel Berger wrote:
*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, mathew wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, James Britt wrote:
Dean Wampler <deanwampler gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, mathew wrote:
[#7100] core dump with ruby 1.9.0 (2006-01-10) and bdb-0.5.8 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
I found following test script dumps core.
>>>>> "T" == Tanaka Akira <akr@m17n.org> writes:
In article <200601110905.k0B950Op001713@moulon.inra.fr>,
[#7109] Calling flock with block? — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Hi,
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Bertram Scharpf wrote:
[#7129] YAML.load({[]=>""}.to_yaml) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
I found that current YAML doesn't round trip {[]=>""}.
Hi.
Hi.
In article <20060115202203.D3624CA0.ocean@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp>,
[#7162] FileUtils.mv does not unlink source file when moving over filesystem boundary — Pav Lucistnik <pav@...>
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
[#7178] Add XHTML 1.0 Output Support to Ruby CGI — Paul Duncan <pabs@...>
The attached patch against Ruby 1.8.4 adds XHTML 1.0 output support to
[#7186] Ruby 1.9 and FHS — "Kirill A. Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...>
Build and install system changes:
[#7195] trouble due ruby redefining posix function eaccess — noreply@...
Bugs item #3317, was opened at 2006-01-24 15:33
[#7197] SSL-enabled DRb fds on SSLError? — ctm@... (Clifford T. Matthews)
Howdy,
On Jan 24, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Clifford T. Matthews wrote:
Patch worked fine against HEAD.
[#7203] bcc32's memory manager bug — "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
Hi.
[#7211] Some troubles with an embedded ruby interpreter — Matt Mower <matt.mower@...>
Hi folks,
[#7216] String#scan loops forefever if scanned string is modified inside block. — noreply@...
Bugs item #3329, was opened at 2006-01-26 10:55
[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Hello,
Sean E. Russell wrote:
>
On 1/28/06, Caleb Tennis <caleb@aei-tech.com> wrote:
On Saturday 28 January 2006 17:13, Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
Sean E. Russell wrote:
[#7249] PATCH: append option to sysread — Yohanes Santoso <ysantoso-rubycore@...>
[#7259] TCP/UDP server weird lags on 1.8.4 linux — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...>
Hi !
[ ruby-Bugs-3175 ] enum.find with ifnone calls ifnone process even if find succeeds
Bugs item #3175, was opened at 2006-01-03 19:49 You can respond by visiting: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1698&aid=3175&group_id=426 Category: Core Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 3 Submitted By: Phil Duby (pduby) Assigned to: Nobody (None) Summary: enum.find with ifnone calls ifnone process even if find succeeds Initial Comment: This is using ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [i386-mswin32] on windows XP pro Calling the find method on an Array including the optional (ifnone) block parameter cause the ifnone block to always be executed, even if the find succeeds. In fact, from my testing, it is called before the first call to the regular find block. The documenation (rdoc) says the ifnone block should only be called if the find block does not match any object. From the inheritance, I assume the problem in in enum, not in the Array class. Below is the output from the small ruby program I attached to demonstrate the error. The 999 and following array values are dummy entries I had the ifnone and find blocks add, to verify the sequence of calls. > ruby -v -w bug_find_with_ifnone.rb ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [i386-mswin32] Initial powers array = [2] start more_powers( 15, 2) end more_powers( 15, 999) = 16 Adjusted powers array = [2, 4, 8, 16, 999] Found next power after 15 = 16 Using find without an ifnone clause Found next power after 7 = 8 Unchanged powers array = [2, 4, 8, 16, 999] Same find that does not reach the end of the array, but with an ifnone clause that will update the array if called start more_powers( 28, 999) end more_powers( 28, 999) = 999 Changed powers array = [2, 4, 8, 16, 999, 999, 2, 4, 8] Found next power after 7 = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1698&aid=3175&group_id=426