[#8815] Segfault in libc strlen, via rb_str_new2 — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>

Howdy,

12 messages 2006/09/09
[#8817] Re: Segfault in libc strlen, via rb_str_new2 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/09/09

On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:10 PM, Sean E. Russell wrote:

Re: new changes in strings+symbols

From: MenTaLguY <mental@...>
Date: 2006-09-14 19:12:35 UTC
List: ruby-core #8872
On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 16:34 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> |Besides, given that symbols can contain nulls now, why are symbols still 
> |prevented from being of null length? It's something that has been a 
> |problem in mapping Ruby to another language (PureData) in which 
> |empty-string symbols are (abnormally) common.
> 
> Makes sense.  I will allow zero length symbols in the HEAD.

Another problem when implementing languages atop Ruby are the
"synonymous" symbols for unary operators -- e.g. :!, :"!@",
and :"!(unary)".  Could these be differentiated somehow?

-mental

Attachments (1)

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

In This Thread