[#9381] Native Thread extension for 1.8 — "Abhisek Datta" <abhisek@...>
Hello,
[#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
On 11/3/06, noreply@rubyforge.org <noreply@rubyforge.org> wrote:
Jacob Fugal wrote:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#9385] merge YARV into Ruby — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Hi,
On Nov 3, 2006, at 9:11 PM, SASADA Koichi wrote:
On 11/4/06, SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 16:01, Kirill Shutemov wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 10:15, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
On 11/6/06, Sean Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 13:37, Kirill Shutemov wrote:
On 11/6/06, Kirill Shutemov <k.shutemov@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/8/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/6/06, ville.mattila@stonesoft.com <ville.mattila@stonesoft.com> wrote:
On 2006-11-07 00:47:20 +0900, Kirill Shutemov wrote:
On 11/6/06, Marcus Rueckert <mrueckert@suse.de> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Joshua Haberman wrote:
[#9402] fast mutexes for 1.8? — MenTaLguY <mental@...>
Many people have been using Thread.critical for locking because Ruby
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:17 +0900, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:21 +0900, khaines@enigo.com wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:38, MenTaLguY wrote:
[#9450] Bikeshed: No more Symbol < String? — Kornelius Kalnbach <murphy@...>
Hi ruby-core!
Hi,
David wrote:
On Nov 7, 2006, at 2:28 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
Too bad, I was rejoicing to remove the need of
[#9470] Ruby performanmce improvements — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...>
I know you guys are in the middle of YARV stuff, but I thought you might be
Hi,
[#9472] Re: fast mutexes for 1.8? — Brent Roman <brent@...>
At RubyConf 2005 I gave an off-the-wall little talk about the
[#9493] Future Plans for Ruby 1.8 Series — URABE Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
This week Japanese rubyists were talking about the future of ruby_1_8
[#9515] External entropy pool for random number generator — "Kirill Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...>
In the attachment patch which allow to use external entropy pool for
Hi,
On 11/13/06, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 11/13/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
[#9520] Re: fast mutexes for 1.8? — Brent Roman <brent@...>
[#9540] Different return values for setter methods — "Marcel Molina Jr." <marcel@...>
>> class Setter; def set=(value) 1 end end
[#9547] Net::FTP should check the control connection on EPIPE — Simon Williams <simon.williams@...>
Hi,
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:23:01AM +0900, Shugo Maeda wrote:
[#9554] Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
I've been thinking about how version numbers are restricting what we can do.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Nov 16, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On 11/16/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Nov 19, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Robert Dober wrote:
On Nov 19, 2006, at 8:13 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> What if we need to exceed 1.8.9?
On Nov 19, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Kornelius Kalnbach wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:
Hugh Sasse wrote:
[#9572] io_write (io.c) bug (and its fix) under MS Windows for GUI apps (rubyw) — "Mounir Idrassi" <idrassi@...>
Hi all,
[#9581] type information — Deni George <denigeorge@...>
Hi,
Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
[#9604] #ancestors never includes the singleton class (inconsistent) — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #6820, was opened at 2006-11-22 08:49
Hi,
> It is supposed to. Singleton classes (or eigenclasses, if you want to
On 11/27/06, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
> 2) You could think of all objects already having a singleton class
Re: fast mutexes for 1.8?
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 09:29 +0900, Joel VanderWerf wrote: > In the ruby-talk thread on "thread death callback" I was suggesting > something a bit different: keep all threads alive in the fork, and raise > an exception (perhaps a subclass of Interrupt) in all threads except the > one that forked, so that they can go thru their ensure clauses and in > particular put the shared data back into a consistent state, clean up > resources, and then give up locks. Threads need to be aware of this > possibility and have ensure clauses to handle the cleanup. Or simply kill them as if they had been killed with Thread.kill. That would ensure that all the ensure clauses were run. I was actually a bit surprised to learn that ensure clauses didn't get called in the fork case -- ensure is darn near invincible otherwise. Of course, there's still the issue of ensure clauses that do things like delete temporary files and the like... -mental