[#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.
Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9
Hi List,
In trying to get rubygems working with 1.9 I ran accross an error
regarding the method "Module#define_method". Investigating further
using the ri documentation I found out that the sample code
(specifically the "send hack") doesn't work anymore with 1.9.
Can someone give me an indication of how things have changed. Perhaps
then we can update the documentation as well.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Emiel van de Laar
spitfire% ~/usr/bin/ri -v define_method
ri v1.0.1 - 20041108
spitfire% ~/usr/bin/ri define_method
--------------------------------------------------- Module#define_method
define_method(symbol, method) => new_method
define_method(symbol) { block } => proc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defines an instance method in the receiver. The _method_ parameter
can be a +Proc+ or +Method+ object. If a block is specified, it is
used as the method body. This block is evaluated using
+instance_eval+, a point that is tricky to demonstrate because
+define_method+ is private. (This is why we resort to the +send+
hack in this example.)
class A
def fred
puts "In Fred"
end
def create_method(name, &block)
self.class.send(:define_method, name, &block)
end
define_method(:wilma) { puts "Charge it!" }
end
class B < A
define_method(:barney, instance_method(:fred))
end
a = B.new
a.barney
a.wilma
a.create_method(:betty) { p self }
a.betty
_produces:_
In Fred
Charge it!
#<B:0x401b39e8>
spitfire% cat define_method_example.rb
class A
def fred
puts "In Fred"
end
def create_method(name, &block)
self.class.send(:define_method, name, &block)
end
define_method(:wilma) { puts "Charge it!" }
end
class B < A
define_method(:barney, instance_method(:fred))
end
a = B.new
a.barney
a.wilma
a.create_method(:betty) { p self }
a.betty
spitfire% ruby -v define_method_example.rb
ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [i386-freebsd5]
In Fred
Charge it!
#<B:0x80760d0>
spitfire% ~/usr/bin/ruby -v define_method_example.rb
ruby 1.9.0 (2006-02-22) [i386-freebsd5.3]
In Fred
Charge it!
define_method_example.rb:6:in `Kernel#send': private method `define_method' called for B:Class (NoMethodError)
from define_method_example.rb:6:in `A#create_method'
from define_method_example.rb:19