[#8484] strptime fails to properly parse certain inputs — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #5263, was opened at 2006-08-01 23:14

13 messages 2006/08/02
[#8485] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-5263 ] strptime fails to properly parse certain inputs — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/08/02

Hi,

[#8538] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-5263 ] strptime fails to properly parse certain inputs — nobu@... 2006/08/06

Hi,

[#8561] sandbox timers & block scopes — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>

Two puzzles I am trying to solve:

28 messages 2006/08/08
[#8624] Re: sandbox timers & block scopes — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...> 2006/08/15

raise ThisDecayingInquisition, "anyone? anyone at all?"

[#8627] Re: sandbox timers & block scopes — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2006/08/15

On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 00:35 +0900, why the lucky stiff wrote:

[#8628] Re: sandbox timers & block scopes — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...> 2006/08/15

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:

[#8629] Re: sandbox timers & block scopes — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/08/15

On 8/15/06, why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@whytheluckystiff.net> wrote:

[#8690] a ruby-core primer — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>

Hello, all. I've been working on the ruby-core page for the new Ruby site.

21 messages 2006/08/22

sandboxes and rb_ensure

From: MenTaLguY <mental@...>
Date: 2006-08-30 04:11:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #8752
Been thinking about the ensure issue -- the thing is, right now, the
calling of the ensure block is wholly unconditional in rb_ensure.  We'd
need a direct interpreter hack to change that, and to be honest I don't
really feel good about weakening the ensure guarantees further.

The more I think about it, the more I think continuations (or something
like them) rather than exceptions could do the trick.  You could even,
in principle, use a continuation to ferry a "foreign" exception up
through a sandbox, unensured (though I'm still not sure subverting
ensure is a good idea unless you're forcibly terminating the eval in
response to a timeout).

(For YARV, we'd do fine with just setjmp-ish half-continuations, I
think.  But as long as Real Continuations are there we probably have to
use continuations for this too.)

The main difficulty is that you can't call a continuation "remotely"
like you can raise an exception remotely with Thread#raise ... in which
case we're back to interpreter hacks again for that.  Also, performance
for saving that snapshot of the stack for the continuation is not so
great.  So, I dunno.  But all that "unwind the stack to just this point,
bypassing ensure" machinery is already taken care of for them, and that
makes them appealing to me.

Thread#goto( cont ) anyone? :D

-mental

Attachments (1)

signature.asc (191 Bytes, application/pgp-signature)

In This Thread

Prev Next