[#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: doc patch: weakref.

From: Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...>
Date: 2006-07-29 15:49:27 UTC
List: ruby-core #8437
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:37:24PM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> >|Something about this phrase bothers me.  How about simply, "A weak
> >|reference class that does not perform garbage collection".
> >
> >But it's not true.  WeakRef class or any other class does not perform
> >garbage collection.  Garbage collector does.  WeakRef is a class to
> >represent reference to the object that is not seen by tracing phase of
> >the garbage collector.
> >
> Then your description (slightly tweaked) is what we want. :)
> 
> "WeakRef is a class to represent a reference to an object that is not seen 
> by the tracing phase of the garbage collector."
> 
> How about that?

Some people don't know how Ruby's GC works, or even what a mark&sweep GC is.
They wouldn't understand what the above means (maybe).

"WeakRef is a class to represent a reference to an object that may be
reclaimed by the GC. The WeakRef is invalidated when this happens."

-- 
Mauricio Fernandez  -   http://eigenclass.org   -  singular Ruby

In This Thread