[#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: tuplespace - make comments visible to rdoc.

From: Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
Date: 2006-07-18 09:11:06 UTC
List: ruby-core #8247
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Jan Svitok wrote:

> That 'doesn't add anything' is meant to the last paragraph, as i understood
> it.

Yes: the comment which consists of 

    ##
    # <i>Documentation?</>
    
    class WaitTemplateEntry

has only been changed to

    #
    # <i>Documentation?</>
    
    class WaitTemplateEntry

(i.e, I left a blank line between the comment and the class, see
assumption below) because it is not a comment that adds information
about WaitTemplateEntry.


> This is a cosmetic patch, and the last mentioned comment wasn't worth
> the cosmetics as it is a stub.

I've just tested my assumption that rdoc needs no blank lines between
the comment and the doc, which is why I removed them.  It turns out 
my assumption was false and the existing comments would be picked up
anyway.  They just didn't show up on ruby-doc.org yet, the other reason
I thought I needed to change this.

> 
> That said, it's another question whether it should be committed or not...

I'll be content either way, it depends on the percieved value of stylistic
consitency.
> 
> J.

        Hugh
> 
> On 7/17/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
> > 
> > > comments in rdoc conventionally don't start with two # marks and don't
> > > have a blank line before the thing (class, method) they document.
> 
> > > attempts to fix this. Only the comment <I>Documentation?</i> before
> > > WaitTemplateEntry has not been processed this way, as it doesn't add
> > > anything at the moment.
> > 
> > If it doesn't add anything useful I don't see why it should be
> > committed.
> 
> 


In This Thread