[#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: parser bug, function call without parens across multiple lines

From: Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...>
Date: 2006-02-27 17:24:47 UTC
List: ruby-core #7436
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:17AM +0900, David Smiley wrote:
> I have encountered a counter-intuitive bug in Ruby's parser.  The
> following sample shows the problem:
> 
> puts Class.new do
>   def to_s
>      'no bug'
>   end
> end.new
> 
[...]
> This problem is NOT there if the code is on one line:
> 
> puts Class.new {def to_s ; 'no bug'; end }.new
>
> The fact that this shows up for the multiple line but not the single
> line sample should be a sign that there is indeed a problem.  And it
> doesn't matter whether the brackets or do-end notation is used; the
  ==============
  I can't reproduce this with 1.8.4, are you sure?
> results are the same.

The original code works as expected (do... end binds to puts, not Class.new),
and I can't see anything strange relative to multi- vs. single-line; {} and
do/end seem to work consistently as advertised:

RUBY_VERSION                                       # => "1.8.4"

# "no bug" expected
puts Class.new {def to_s ; 'no bug'; end }.new
# >> no bug

# ditto 
puts Class.new {
  def to_s; 'no bug' end
}.new
# >> no bug

# expect Class#inspect on stdout and undefined 'new' for nil (puts' return
# value)

puts Class.new do def to_s ; 'no bug'; end end.new
# ~> -:1: undefined method `new' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
# >> #<Class:0xb7dd0f70>


puts Class.new do 
  def to_s ; 'no bug'; end 
end.new
# ~> -:3: undefined method `new' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
# >> #<Class:0xb7d5af48>

-- 
Mauricio Fernandez  -   http://eigenclass.org   -  non-trivial Ruby

In This Thread