[#8136] Confused exception handling in Continuation Context — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>

Hi all

13 messages 2006/07/06

[#8248] One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...>

I just posted this to ruby-talk. But I would also like to discuss this

33 messages 2006/07/18
[#8264] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

From my experience using both tool chains on Windows (for the ruby-prof

[#8266] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...> 2006/07/19

Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8267] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

> Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8271] my sandboxing extension!! — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>

I have (what feels like) very exciting news. I finally sat down to code up my

17 messages 2006/07/19

[#8430] Re: doc patch: weakref. — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>

> -----Original Message-----

19 messages 2006/07/28
[#8434] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/29

Hi,

[#8436] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2006/07/29

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#8437] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...> 2006/07/29

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:37:24PM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:

[#8441] Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...>

I have the following code:

18 messages 2006/07/30
[#8442] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — nobu@... 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8443] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/30

Why does this:

[#8445] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8454] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/31

So to clarify...

Re: [BUG] next in ensure body (Ruby 1.8.x)

From: "Dominik Bathon" <dbatml@...>
Date: 2006-07-08 10:40:32 UTC
List: ruby-core #8171
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 11:23:20 +0200, ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote:

>>>>>> "D" == Dominik Bathon <dbatml@gmx.de> writes:
>
> D> It seems to work correctly in 1.9.
>
>  Not really,
>
>
> moulon% cat ~/b.rb
> def foo; yield; end
> p foo { begin; next 5; ensure; 12; end }
> moulon%
>
> moulon% ./ruby -v ~/b.rb
> ruby 1.9.0 (2006-07-08) [i686-linux]
> nil
> moulon%

That's interesting, it did work in May (I didn't install a current version  
to test, because it worked with the one I had):

$ cat next_in_ensure.rb
def foo; yield; end
p foo { next 5 }
p foo { begin; next 5; rescue; end }
p foo { begin; ensure; next 5; end }
p foo { begin; next 5; ensure; end }

$ ruby19 -v next_in_ensure.rb
ruby 1.9.0 (2006-05-18) [i686-linux]
next_in_ensure.rb:4: warning: statement not reached
5
5
5
5

>  the problem is here
>
> moulon% ./ruby-yarv -v ~/b.rb
> ruby 2.0.0 (Base: Ruby 1.9.0 2006-04-08) [i686-linux]
> YARVCore 0.4.0 Rev: 509 (2006-07-05) [opts: ]
> 5
> moulon%
>
>  what to do ? which is really official ?

I think it should be 5, because why should there be a difference between  
"foo { next 5 }" and "foo { begin; next 5; ensure; end }".

>  It seems to have more differences between ruby and ruby-yarv :-(
>
>
> Guy Decoux

In This Thread