[#7500] Re: how to introduce reference objects into ruby — "Geert Fannes" <Geert.Fannes@...>

The problem with the code you sent is that you have to go through ALL

16 messages 2006/03/10

[#7553] "not" operator used in expression that is a method parameter can generate syntax error — noreply@...

Bugs item #3843, was opened at 2006-03-15 22:09

27 messages 2006/03/16
[#7554] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-3843 ] "not" operator used in expression that is a method parameter can generate syntax error — nobu@... 2006/03/16

Hi,

[#7557] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-3843 ] "not" operator used in expression that is a method parameter can generate syntax error — 卜部昌平 <shyouhei@...> 2006/03/16

Nobu, you are not answering to the question.... You have to unveil why

[#7559] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-3843 ] "not" operator used in expression that is a method parameter can generate syntax error — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/03/16

Hi,

[#7560] Rant about keyword logical operators was : (Re: [ ruby-Bugs-3843 ] "not" operator used in expression that is a method parameter can generate syntax error) — "Zev Blut" <rubyzbibd@...> 2006/03/16

Hello,

[#7565] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-3843 ] "not" operator used in expression that is a method parameter can generate syntax error — mathew <meta@...> 2006/03/16

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#7566] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-3843 ] "not" operator used in expression that is a method parameter can generate syntax error — "Brian Mitchell" <binary42@...> 2006/03/16

On 3/16/06, mathew <meta@pobox.com> wrote:

[#7567] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-3843 ] "not" operator used in expression that is a method parameter can generate syntax error — mathew <meta@...> 2006/03/16

Brian Mitchell wrote:

[#7568] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-3843 ] "not" operator used in expression that is a method parameter can generate syntax error — "Brian Mitchell" <binary42@...> 2006/03/16

On 3/16/06, mathew <meta@pobox.com> wrote:

[#7614] PATCH: A subclassable Pathname — "Evan Phoenix" <evanwebb@...>

A simply change (changing all references of "Pathname.new" to

19 messages 2006/03/27
[#7618] Re: PATCH: A subclassable Pathname — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/03/27

In article <92f5f81d0603262350k796fe48fp2224b9f2108ac507@mail.gmail.com>,

[#7619] Re: PATCH: A subclassable Pathname — "Evan Phoenix" <evan@...> 2006/03/27

Quite right on the .glob and .getwd. I guess the tests don't test hit

[#7620] Re: PATCH: A subclassable Pathname — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/03/27

In article <92f5f81d0603270903g2fb02244i6a395be708dfffa3@mail.gmail.com>,

Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3)

From: Kev Jackson <kevin.jackson@...>
Date: 2006-03-01 03:04:06 UTC
List: ruby-core #7466
Evan Webb wrote:

>Just my quick 2 cents...
>
>Akira's patch is much more acceptable imho because it doesn't change
>the already pretty hardset semantics of the VALUE meaning. In
>addition, the other patch has a significant performance / memory
>impact that should be considered before accepting the patch. By moving
>fixnum down by a full 4 powers of 2, and triggering Bignum conversion
>much earlier than is currently seen, memory utilization patterns will
>change significantly for anyone working with decently large integers.
>
>Akira's patch simply guarantees that all Object pointers are aligned
>to never collide with the other immediates, which is the overall goal
>of having immediate values. It's also significantly simplier.
>
>Nice job Akira.
>
> - Evan <evan at fallingsnow dot net>
>  
>
Both points are excellently made - especially about the fact that the 
other patch could cause a problem with BWC - ie stuff that was working 
fine with large integers now starts to behave in a different manner

Great post
Kev

In This Thread