[#8123] Unit/Regression tests for Ruby builtin classes and modules — Wayne Kelly <w.kelly@...>
[#8129] segmentation fault while evaluating printf:Kernel — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #4949, was opened at 2006-07-05 18:03
[#8131] thread mystery — ara.t.howard@...
[#8132] rdoc, C extensions, stop and start — "Daniel Berger" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi,
[#8136] Confused exception handling in Continuation Context — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>
Hi all
Robert Dober schrieb:
On 7/6/06, Pit Capitain <pit@capitain.de> wrote:
Hi,
[#8142] thread/sync.rb memory corruption — ara.t.howard@...
Could someone please confirm this can be reproduced on 1.8.5 pre1?
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, URABE Shyouhei wrote:
[#8167] bug in printf — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #4970, was opened at 2006-07-07 14:18
Hi,
On 7/25/06, nobu@ruby-lang.org <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
[#8169] next in ensure body (Ruby 1.8.x) — "Dominik Bathon" <dbatml@...>
Hi,
[#8180] Called method not removed after remove_method — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #4998, was opened at 2006-07-09 13:20
[#8194] rss patch -- mostly doc, plus English adjustments. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
This is a patch set against the stable snapshot.
Hi,
[#8196] SONY VIAOLAPTOP-------------$750USD,NOKIA N93-------------------$250USD — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #5032, was opened at 2006-07-12 18:41
I think this is more of an enhancement...
> Subject: Re: [ ruby-Bugs-5032 ] SONY
[#8201] Please implement expect.rb for Windows Ruby — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #5036, was opened at 2006-07-12 14:44
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
[#8203] Re: [PATCH] --fqname option to test/unit/autorunner.rb — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
> -----Original Message-----
Thanks again for getting back to me. Perhaps my original focus on the
[#8222] Rdoc patch for lib/prettyprint.rb — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
This is a first pass at converting the RDTool docs for lib/prettyprint.rb
[#8223] Unexpected pointer behavior with unpack — "Justin Bailey" <jgbailey@...>
I have had the opportunity to work [1] a lot with Ruby's ability to create
[#8229] open-uri fails under multithreading — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #5067, was opened at 2006-07-14 19:11
[#8243] tuplespace - make comments visible to rdoc. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
comments in rdoc conventionally don't start with two # marks and don't
On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
That 'doesn't add anything' is meant to the last paragraph, as i understood it.
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Jan Svitok wrote:
[#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
Dear Curt,
On 7/20/06, Kaspar Schiess <eule@space.ch> wrote:
I was wondering if the toolchain could be built around rake?
The One-Click Ruby Installer's build process is, in fact, controlled via
From my experience using both tool chains on Windows (for the ruby-prof
Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in
> Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in
On 7/19/06, Charlie Savage <cfis@savagexi.com> wrote:
Curt Hibbs wrote:
On 7/19/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
Hello,
[#8262] Instability around popen due to missing rb_thread_atfork — <noreply@...>
Patches item #5111, was opened at 2006-07-18 22:36
Hi,
On 19 Jul 2006, at 8:25, <nobu@ruby-lang.org> <nobu@ruby-lang.org>
[#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
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 06:40:34PM +0900, why the lucky stiff wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:00:15PM +0900, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 11:18:27PM +0900, why the lucky stiff wrote:
Okay, it turns out that, in order for this to work, I also need the following
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 03:11:34PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On 7/20/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#8273] Regular-Expressions Problem/Bug — Reto Schuettel <reto-ruby-core@...>
Hi
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Reto Schuettel wrote:
Hi
>>>>> "R" == Reto Schuettel <reto-ruby-core@schuettel.ch> writes:
[#8299] Interest in NTLM/Negotiate patch for net/http? — "Justin Bailey" <jgbailey@...>
My workplace recently installed Microsoft's ISA server, which proxies all
On Jul 19, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Justin Bailey wrote:
[#8331] (Fwd) Re: Patch to Ruby in 2005 — "John Fletcher" <J.P.Fletcher@...>
Hi
Hi,
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, nobu@ruby-lang.org wrote:
[#8379] rdoc grows to large size. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
While working on that .document patch I noticed that rdoc grew to
On Jul 24, 2006, at 6:09 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
[#8394] Re: rdoc grows to large size. — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
> -----Original Message-----
[#8423] doc patch: readbytes.rb — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
A patch against the stable snapshot.
[#8427] RDoc picking up comments from function prototypes — Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@...>
Hi,
Tilman Sauerbeck [2006-07-29 02:39]:
On Aug 9, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
[#8430] Re: doc patch: weakref. — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
> -----Original Message-----
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:37:24PM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
On Jul 31, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Aug 1, 2006, at 2:13 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
[#8441] Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...>
I have the following code:
Hi,
Why does this:
Hi,
So to clarify...
I don't want to take this thread off-course, but what I meant was
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Matt Todd wrote:
On 7/30/06, Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:
Awesome. Thank you very much for your responses. Curious. I knew a
On 7/31/06, Matt Todd <chiology@gmail.com> wrote:
[#8447] #if should be #ifdef in ruby.h — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #5243, was opened at 2006-07-30 16:31
noreply@rubyforge.org wrote:
[#8466] Multi-Line Date Formate Patch — James Edward Gray II <james@...>
It was pointed out to me that the following code is surprising:
On Jul 31, 2006, at 8:26 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
Hi,
Re: [PATCH] --fqname option to test/unit/autorunner.rb
Thanks again for getting back to me. Perhaps my original focus on the fact that I had multiple test cases in the same file was something of a red herring -- I think it's only incidental to the real issue. As I understand the current intent of AutoRunner, and of the testing libraries as a whole, the intent is to have a collector (Collector::ObjectSpace, Collector::Dir, or otherwise) gather up multiple test cases from somewhere. As it is today, the '--testcase' and the '--name' options are in place to allow the user to filter the collection, regardless of how they were collected, in some meaningful way. I believe that these two options leave a gap for what I'm proposing with '--fqname', and so it seems that the patch would be in line with the current spirit of the libraries. Again, perhaps my assumptions are incorrect about the intent of the Collector classes and of how the test suites are expected to function. If that is the case, perhaps the authors most familiar with the testing architecture could help me better understand? jon Berger, Daniel wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: jonathan gold [mailto:dev@samizdatdigital.org] >>Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:22 PM >>To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org >>Subject: Re: [PATCH] --fqname option to test/unit/autorunner.rb >> >> >>Daniel -- >> >>One of my colleagues pointed out that maybe I mistook your initial >>response. To clarify, will this patch be applied to the ruby >>codebase at >>some point? > > > Not unless Matz or Nathaniel Talbott approve it. > > There's no reason you couldn't create your own little library, install > it, and require it separately, is there? Otherwise you'll be waiting > until mid August at the earliest. Given the lack of feedback on your > patch I suspect the general consensus is that you shouldn't put multiple > test case classes in the same file, so there's just no demand for this > patch. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or > privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication > in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > all copies of the communication and any attachments. >