[#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: [ ruby-Bugs-4970 ] bug in printf

From: nobu@...
Date: 2006-07-26 02:55:17 UTC
List: ruby-core #8401
Hi,

At Fri, 7 Jul 2006 23:18:13 +0900,
<noreply@rubyforge.org> wrote in [ruby-core:08167]:
> In the second case Bignum -1234567890 is not treated as an
> unsigned decimal number.

I think the latter would be a bug.


Index: sprintf.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ruby/src/ruby/sprintf.c,v
retrieving revision 1.34.2.17
diff -p -u -2 -w -r1.34.2.17 sprintf.c
--- sprintf.c	12 Jun 2006 13:30:32 -0000	1.34.2.17
+++ sprintf.c	26 Jul 2006 02:54:41 -0000
@@ -627,7 +627,5 @@ rb_f_sprintf(argc, argv)
 		    if (base == 10) {
 			rb_warning("negative number for %%u specifier");
-			s++;
 		    }
-		    else {
 			remove_sign_bits(++s, base);
 			tmp = rb_str_new(0, 3+strlen(s));
@@ -648,5 +646,4 @@ rb_f_sprintf(argc, argv)
 			bignum = 2;
 		    }
-		}
 		s = RSTRING(tmp)->ptr;
 


-- 
Nobu Nakada

In This Thread