[#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: [ ruby-Bugs-3565 ] Method object used as Object#instance_eval block doesn't work (as expected)

From: Ozgur Murat Homurlu <ozgurmurath@...>
Date: 2006-02-17 19:34:03 UTC
List: ruby-core #7380
On Pr 2006-02-16 at 04:06 +0900, Ozgur Murat Homurlu wrote:
> 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.

Here's the patch which documents the behaviour of instance_eval when a
Method object is given as the block:


ruby.old/eval.c	2006-02-17 21:25:29.000000000 +0200
+++ ruby/eval.c	2006-02-17 21:21:14.000000000 +0200
@@ -6497,7 +6497,10 @@
  *  instance variables. In the version of <code>instance_eval</code>
  *  that takes a +String+, the optional second and third
  *  parameters supply a filename and starting line number that are used
- *  when reporting compilation errors.
+ *  when reporting compilation errors. Note that, if a Proc that is
+ *  converted from a Method object is given as the block,
+ *  <code>instance_eval</code> will not change the context of this
+ *  block and it will be evaluated in Method object's original context.
  *     
  *     class Klass
  *       def initialize





In This Thread