[#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: "Jacob Fugal" <lukfugl@...>
Date: 2006-07-27 17:53:58 UTC
List: ruby-core #8418
On 7/26/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> In message "Re: [ ruby-Bugs-4970 ] bug in printf"
>     on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:11:28 +0900, "Jacob Fugal" <lukfugl@gmail.com> writes:
>
> |Ok, that makes sense. Should we maybe patch the documentation on
> |Kernel#sprintf to mention those?
>
> Perhaps.  Would anyone volunteer to make a patch?

How's this look? It's probably too verbose, and I'm not even sure
about the accuracy, but it could be a starting point for someone else
to clean up...

Index: sprintf.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /src/ruby/sprintf.c,v
retrieving revision 1.65
diff -u -r1.65 sprintf.c
--- sprintf.c   26 Jul 2006 08:28:57 -0000      1.65
+++ sprintf.c   27 Jul 2006 17:51:17 -0000
@@ -216,7 +216,12 @@
  *        s   | Argument is a string to be substituted. If the format
  *            | sequence contains a precision, at most that many characters
  *            | will be copied.
- *        u   | Treat argument as an unsigned decimal number.
+ *        u   | Treat argument as an unsigned decimal number. Negative integers
+ *            | are displayed as a 32 bit two's complement plus one for the
+ *            | underlying architecture; that is, 2 ** 32 + n.  However, since
+ *            | Ruby has no inherent limit on bits used to represent the
+ *            | integer, this value is preceded by two dots (..) in order to
+ *            | indicate a infinite number of leading sign bits.
  *        X   | Convert argument as a hexadecimal number using uppercase
  *            | letters. Negative numbers will be displayed with two
  *            | leading periods (representing an infinite string of
@@ -233,6 +238,7 @@
  *     sprintf("%1$*2$s %2$d %1$s", "hello", 8)   #=> "   hello 8 hello"
  *     sprintf("%1$*2$s %2$d", "hello", -8)       #=> "hello    -8"
  *     sprintf("%+g:% g:%-g", 1.23, 1.23, 1.23)   #=> "+1.23: 1.23:1.23"
+ *     sprintf("%u", -123)                        #=> "..4294967173"
  */

 VALUE

In This Thread