[#7286] Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273 — ara.t.howard@...

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Minero Aoki wrote:

23 messages 2006/02/02
[#7292] ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/02/02

[#7293] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/02/02

mathew wrote:

[#7298] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — James Britt <ruby@...> 2006/02/03

mathew wrote:

[#7310] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2006/02/07

I'm not sure we even need the 'with' syntax. Even if we do, it breaks

[#7311] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...> 2006/02/07

On 2006.02.07 10:03, Evan Webb wrote:

[#7313] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2006/02/07

Umm, on what version are you seeing a warning there? I don't and never

[#7315] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...> 2006/02/07

On 2006.02.07 14:47, Evan Webb wrote:

[#7316] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2006/02/07

I'd by far prefer it never emit a warning. The warning is assumes you

[#7305] Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3 — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...>

On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:33:40PM +0900, Christian Neukirchen wrote:

28 messages 2006/02/05
[#7401] Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/02/22

On Feb 5, 2006, at 5:05 AM, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:

[#7414] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...> 2006/02/23

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 02:21:24PM +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:

[#7428] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/26

In article <1140968746.321377.18843.nullmailer@x31.priv.netlab.jp>,

[#7444] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — nobu@... 2006/02/28

Hi,

[#7445] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/28

In article <m1FDshr-0006MNC@Knoppix>,

[#7447] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/28

In article <87irr047sx.fsf@m17n.org>,

[#7448] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/28

In article <87vev0hxu5.fsf@m17n.org>,

[#7465] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — "Evan Webb" <evanwebb@...> 2006/03/01

Just my quick 2 cents...

[#7468] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/03/01

In article <92f5f81d0602281855g27e78f4eua8bf20e0b8e47b68@mail.gmail.com>,

[#7403] Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9 — Emiel van de Laar <emiel@...>

Hi List,

12 messages 2006/02/22
[#7404] Re: Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9 — George Ogata <g_ogata@...> 2006/02/22

Emiel van de Laar <emiel@rednode.nl> writes:

[#7406] Re: Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9 — dblack@... 2006/02/22

Hi --

[#7442] GC Question — zdennis <zdennis@...>

I have been posting to the ruby-talk mailing list about ruby memory and GC, and I think it's ready

17 messages 2006/02/27

Re: Parse error within Regexp

From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-02-12 12:47:24 UTC
List: ruby-core #7343
Hi --

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 11:42:42AM +0900, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
>>> Would something like this make sense?
>>>
>>> $  ./ruby19 -e '"".scan / ,/'
>>> -e:1: syntax error, unexpected ','
>>> "".scan / ,/
>>>          ^
>>> -e:1: unterminated regexp meets end of file
>>>                 ========
>>
>> I'm not sure the "unterminated string" makes sense as the error
>> message, but I don't think it's an unterminated regex either.  It
>> seems that Ruby sees the first / as division, so it doesn't consider
>> itself to be in mid-regex.  If it thought it was in mid-regex, it
>> would presumably keep going and it would find that the regex *is*
>> terminated.
>
> I think the second '/' marks the start of the regexp, as seen by
> the parser in that case (erroneously of course, but read below):
>
> "".scan / ,/   <----------------------------
>          ^                                  \
> this is the unexpected ,                  and this the unterminated regexp
>
> Compare that to
>
> $ ruby -e '"".scan / , " '
> -e:1: syntax error, unexpected ','
> "".scan / , "
>           ^
> -e:1: unterminated string meets end of file
> -e:1: warning: useless use of a literal in void context
>
> The parser is doing its best to keep parsing so it can report further
> errors.

Perhaps, but I don't think "unterminated regexp" describes the
situation very well.  Of course the real situation is: I'm getting a
barrage of strange error messages so something must be *really* wrong
:-)

> Besides, consider this case:
>
> $ ruby19 -e 'puts ARGF.read.scan /[-+]?(\d+(?:\.\d+)?)(?=[^\d])'
> -e:1: warning: ambiguous first argument; put parentheses or even spaces
> -e:1: unterminated string meets end of file
> -e:1: syntax error, unexpected tSTRING_END, expecting tSTRING_CONTENT or tREGEXP_END or tSTRING_DBEG or tSTRING_DVAR
>
> I think the following makes more sense and is less noisy too:
>
> ~/src/ruby/ruby.head$ ./ruby19 -e 'puts ARGF.read.scan /[-+]?(\d+(?:\.\d+)?)(?=[^\d])'
> -e:1: warning: ambiguous first argument; put parentheses or even spaces
> -e:1: unterminated regexp meets end of file
> -e:1: warning: parenthesize argument(s) for future version

That's a different case, though: that's truly an unterminated regexp.


David

-- 
David A. Black (dblack@wobblini.net)
Ruby Power and Light (http://www.rubypowerandlight.com)

"Ruby for Rails" chapters now available
from Manning Early Access Program! http://www.manning.com/books/black

In This Thread