[#7271] Re: [PATCH] solaris 10 isinf and ruby_setenv fixes — ville.mattila@...
[#7272] [PATCH] OS X core dumps when $0 is changed and then loads shared libraries — noreply@...
Bugs item #3399, was opened at 2006-01-31 22:25
[#7274] Re: [PATCH] solaris 10 isinf and ruby_setenv fixes — ville.mattila@...
[#7277] Re: [PATCH] solaris 10 isinf and ruby_setenv fixes — ville.mattila@...
[#7280] Re: [PATCH] solaris 10 isinf and ruby_setenv fixes — ville.mattila@...
[#7286] Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273 — ara.t.howard@...
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Minero Aoki wrote:
mathew wrote:
mathew wrote:
I'm not sure we even need the 'with' syntax. Even if we do, it breaks
On 2006.02.07 10:03, Evan Webb wrote:
Umm, on what version are you seeing a warning there? I don't and never
On 2006.02.07 14:47, Evan Webb wrote:
I'd by far prefer it never emit a warning. The warning is assumes you
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Evan Webb wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Timothy J. Wood wrote:
[#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:
On Feb 5, 2006, at 5:05 AM, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 02:21:24PM +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:45:28AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 06:06:17PM +0100, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
In article <20060226171117.GB29508@tux-chan>,
In article <1140968746.321377.18843.nullmailer@x31.priv.netlab.jp>,
Hi,
In article <m1FDshr-0006MNC@Knoppix>,
In article <87irr047sx.fsf@m17n.org>,
In article <87vev0hxu5.fsf@m17n.org>,
Just my quick 2 cents...
In article <92f5f81d0602281855g27e78f4eua8bf20e0b8e47b68@mail.gmail.com>,
Hi,
In article <m1FESAD-0001blC@Knoppix>,
Hi,
[#7331] Set containing duplicates — noreply@...
Bugs item #3506, was opened at 2006-02-08 22:52
[#7337] Parse error within Regexp — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Hi,
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 01:34:55AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#7344] Ruby 1.8.4 on Mac OS X 10.4 Intel — Dae San Hwang <daesan@...>
Hi, all. This is my first time posting to this mailing list.
On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:14 AM, Dae San Hwang wrote:
[#7347] Latest change to eval.c — Kent Sibilev <ksruby@...>
It seems that the latest change to eval.c (1.616.2.154) has broken irb.
Hi,
Thanks, Matz.
[#7364] Method object used as Object#instance_eval block doesn't work (as expected) — noreply@...
Bugs item #3565, was opened at 2006-02-15 02:32
Hi,
Hi,
On Pr 2006-02-16 at 03:18 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#7376] Minor tracer.rb patch — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi,
[#7396] IO#reopen — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
[#7403] Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9 — Emiel van de Laar <emiel@...>
Hi List,
Emiel van de Laar <emiel@rednode.nl> writes:
Hi --
[#7439] FYI: ruby-lang.org is on spamcop blacklists — mathew <meta@...>
dnsbl/bl.spamcop.net returned deny: for
[#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
Hello.
Hello.
Re: Parse error within Regexp
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 09:47:24PM +0900, dblack@wobblini.net wrote: > >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. The point is that both cases (actual, and spurious unterminated regexp due to '/' being interpreted as a division) are handled by the same code in parse.y. The patch in [7340] clarifies the error message in the above situation and does no harm in the other case (if anything, it makes it slightly less confusing because one won't be left wondering where the "unterminated string" is), which is the reason why it was written in the first place. -- Mauricio Fernandez