[#7872] Nonblocking socket-connect — "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@...>

All, I needed a nonblocking socket connect for my asynchronous-event

18 messages 2006/05/14
[#7873] Re: Nonblocking socket-connect — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/05/14

In article <3a94cf510605140559l7baa0205le341dac4f47d424b@mail.gmail.com>,

[#7874] Re: Nonblocking socket-connect — "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@...> 2006/05/15

How about introducing the method Socket#set_nonblocking, or alternatively

[#7875] Re: Nonblocking socket-connect — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/05/15

Hi,

[#7876] Re: Nonblocking socket-connect — "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@...> 2006/05/15

Well, it's ok then. I'm comfortable adding in the nonblocking

[#7877] Re: Nonblocking socket-connect — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/05/15

Hi,

Re: Method call syntax

From: Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Date: 2006-05-09 19:08:45 UTC
List: ruby-core #7856
Hi,

Am Dienstag, 09. Mai 2006, 14:10:28 +0900 schrieb Yukihiro Matsumoto:
> In message "Re: Method call syntax"
>     on Tue, 9 May 2006 05:48:13 +0900, mathew <meta@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> |"Omission of parentheses around method arguments may lead to unexpected 
> |results. Note that the Ruby developers have stated that omission of 
> |parentheses may be disallowed in future Ruby versions..."
> 
>  Omission of parentheses around method arguments for method calls in
>  the argument list may make programs hard to read / parse.
> 
> for example,
> 
>   p sprintf "the answer=%d\n",42
> 
> warns like "warning: parenthesize argument(s) for future version", and
> recommended code should be
> 
>   p sprintf("the answer=%d\n",42)

I wouldn't mind to take account of a precedence rule, at
best as it currently is. I'm rather annoyed by encountering
these warnings all the time.

Probablyi, I'm not considering some parsing difficulty.

Bertram


-- 
Bertram Scharpf
Stuttgart, Deutschland/Germany
http://www.bertram-scharpf.de

In This Thread

Prev Next