[#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...

Patch to Ruby in 2005

From: "John Fletcher" <J.P.Fletcher@...>
Date: 2006-07-19 16:11:09 UTC
List: ruby-core #8290
According to the ChangeLog in Ruby 1.8.4 the 
following patch was made to Ruby in 2005

Wed Jun  8 08:33:10 2005  Nobuyoshi Nakada  <nobu@ruby-
lang.org>
* eval.c (backtrace): skip successive frames sharing same node. 

We are having some trouble as a result, because when using the 
coerce feature of ruby, the call stack no longer contains the 
information needed, and we have traced this to a line of code in
backtrace in eval.c.

 if (frame->prev->node == n) continue;

If this is commented out then the problem goes away.

The problem is that the calling operator e.g. `+' is no longer in the
string given by caller[0] and so it is not possible to take different
action depending on different operators.

For more details please see the discussion on

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ElizabethWiethoff

Please would you consider reversing this change or else modifying 
it
so that the previous behaviour is restored for coerce.

Example code for what is being done is on 

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RubyCoerce

I guess that there may be other reasons why you made the change.

Thank you

John Fletcher
-- 
Dr John P. Fletcher   Tel: (44) 121 204 3389 (direct line)
Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry (CEAC),
School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS),
Aston University, Aston Triangle, BIRMINGHAM B4 7ET  U.K.               
CEAC Web site http://www.ceac.aston.ac.uk/
FAX: (44) 121 204 3679


Attachments (1)

- (1.13 KB, application/octet-stream)

In This Thread

Prev Next