[#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: [ ruby-Bugs-3565 ] Method object used as Object#instance_eval block doesn't work (as expected)
On Pr 2006-02-16 at 03:18 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > A method object is tightly bound to its receiver. Even instance_eval > cannot rebind the bound receiver of a method object, mostly because > methods simply just don't work well with objects of other types, > unlike simple Proc objects written in Ruby. For example, string > methods like #split expect their receiver to be strings, and no other > type. If rebound is allowed they would just crash. I see. This is the the answer I was expecting. I was just experimenting with the language to understand it better. > Considering above reason, we have three choices: a) disallow invoking > instance_eval with a proc made from a method at all. b) abandon > receiver rebinding for a proc made from a method. c) add type checks > for the receivers in every methods, no matter who implemented. these > checks could be source of bugs, and could slow down the interpreter a > lot. > > I'd rather choose option b. It's safe, fast, and inconsistency is > small. As far as I can imagine, not many people try to rebind the > receiver of the bound method using instance_eval(). I agree, option b would be the optimum solution. I believe, for consistency, additionally a warning might be generated and this limitation should be stated in instance_eval documentation, and maybe in Method#to_proc documentation too. Thank you, Regards.