[#9382] the sign of a number is omitted when squaring it. -2**2 vs (-2)**2 — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #6468, was opened at 2006-11-03 17:25

9 messages 2006/11/03

[#9385] merge YARV into Ruby — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

Hi,

42 messages 2006/11/04
[#9405] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — "Kirill Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...> 2006/11/06

On 11/4/06, SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:

[#9406] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2006/11/06

On Monday 06 November 2006 16:01, Kirill Shutemov wrote:

[#9417] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — Sean Russell <ser@...> 2006/11/06

On Monday 06 November 2006 10:15, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:

[#9428] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — "Kirill Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...> 2006/11/06

On 11/6/06, Sean Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:

[#9402] fast mutexes for 1.8? — MenTaLguY <mental@...>

Many people have been using Thread.critical for locking because Ruby

24 messages 2006/11/06

[#9450] Bikeshed: No more Symbol < String? — Kornelius Kalnbach <murphy@...>

Hi ruby-core!

21 messages 2006/11/07
[#9452] Re: Bikeshed: No more Symbol < String? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/11/07

Hi,

[#9493] Future Plans for Ruby 1.8 Series — URABE Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

This week Japanese rubyists were talking about the future of ruby_1_8

13 messages 2006/11/09

[#9515] External entropy pool for random number generator — "Kirill Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...>

In the attachment patch which allow to use external entropy pool for

13 messages 2006/11/11
[#9522] Re: External entropy pool for random number generator — "Nobuyoshi Nakada" <nobu@...> 2006/11/13

Hi,

[#9554] Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>

I've been thinking about how version numbers are restricting what we can do.

30 messages 2006/11/16
[#9561] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/11/16

[#9563] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...> 2006/11/16

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:

[#9564] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/11/16

On Nov 16, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Hugh Sasse wrote:

[#9571] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2006/11/19

On 11/16/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

[#9604] #ancestors never includes the singleton class (inconsistent) — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #6820, was opened at 2006-11-22 08:49

12 messages 2006/11/22
[#9618] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-6820 ] #ancestors never includes the singleton class (inconsistent) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/11/25

Hi,

[#9629] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-6820 ] #ancestors never includes the singleton class (inconsistent) — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2006/11/27

> It is supposed to. Singleton classes (or eigenclasses, if you want to

Re: merge YARV into Ruby

From: "Brian Mitchell" <binary42@...>
Date: 2006-11-08 22:11:37 UTC
List: ruby-core #9487
On 11/8/06, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:
> On 11/8/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/6/06, Kirill Shutemov <k.shutemov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/6/06, Sean Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:
> > > > 1) Sylvain is right about the development model of Ruby being more
> > > > in-line with having a central repository.
> > > Do you think that distributed repository will not be useful for adding
> > > new libs to standart library or make a global redesign in ruby core? I
> > > think it's very similar to kernel development process(adding new
> > > drivers and changing internal interfaces).
> >
> > I think exactly that. IME, distributed SCMs are wasteful of resources
> > most of the time.
> > I'd *almost* prefer to see Ruby move to p4 than any distributed SCM.
> > (And yes, I know it's a proprietary product. Ruby, however, being an
> > open source project, would qualify for open source licensing.)
>
> And I'd *almost* wish people would just shut the fuck up and drop this
> fucking retarded discussion that's leading us fucking nowhere.  It's
> obvious that some people prefer Git, some Monotone, some Subversion,
> and obviously some *almost* prefer Perforce.  It's also obvious that
> it's up to the project maintainers to decide what fucking tool they
> fucking want to use.  I'm sure that if they find Subversion to be
> fucked up (and I'm sure they will, sooner or later) we can have this
> stupid fucking discussion at that point.  It's not like we're locking
> Ruby into Subversion prison indefinitely.  So can we please fucking
> leave it at that and stop wasting precious fucking discussion and get
> back to Symbols and Strings?

Please don't limit people to your own views of what is appropriate.
This thread is about civilized discussion. I got a few interesting
points of view from it. If you feel like you _really_ need to invade a
thread and kill it, please at least do so with the civility that was
already present before that.

I know Ruby-core has usually been a very focussed list. I am sorry for
helping this spin off so far but I am surely not sorry for the
enjoyable exchange I was able to have in the mean time.

Thanks for your patience,
Brian.

In This Thread