[#9869] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #7680, was opened at 2007-01-08 22:53

34 messages 2007/01/08
[#9871] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/08

Hi,

[#9872] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Evan Webb <evan@...> 2007/01/08

On Jan 8, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#9873] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/08

Hi,

[#9876] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — dblack@... 2007/01/09

Hi --

[#9878] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9879] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — dblack@... 2007/01/09

Hi --

[#9880] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9882] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2007/01/09

[#9885] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9887] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2007/01/09

[#9888] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/09

Evan Phoenix wrote:

[#9892] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9899] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/10

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#9904] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/10

Hi,

[#9960] Scoping and locating definitions — Jos Backus <jos@...>

Consider the following:

17 messages 2007/01/18
[#9964] Re: Scoping and locating definitions — Pit Capitain <pit@...> 2007/01/19

Jos Backus schrieb:

[#9966] Re: Scoping and locating definitions — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2007/01/19

On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 06:40:03PM +0900, Pit Capitain wrote:

[#9972] Re: Scoping and locating definitions — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2007/01/19

On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 02:18:19AM +0900, Jos Backus wrote:

[#9996] new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

Hi,

50 messages 2007/01/23
[#10002] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@...42.com> 2007/01/23

SASADA Koichi wrote:

[#10003] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/23

Hi,

[#10004] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/01/23

On Jan 23, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10017] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@...42.com> 2007/01/24

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10018] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/24

Hi,

[#10024] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@...42.com> 2007/01/24

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10027] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/24

Hi,

[#10048] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2007/01/25

The more this discussion goes on, the more I worry that Joe Q Public

[#10019] stable branch policy & schedule for 1.8.6 — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>

Core developers,

29 messages 2007/01/24
[#10021] Re: stable branch policy & schedule for 1.8.6 — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/24

Akinori MUSHA wrote:

[#10032] Re: stable branch policy & schedule for 1.8.6 — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...> 2007/01/24

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#10085] Collaborative Ruby Language Specification — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>

Hi Everyone,

36 messages 2007/01/28
[#10108] Re: Collaborative Ruby Language Specification — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/29

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

[#10112] Re: Collaborative Ruby Language Specification — "Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel@...> 2007/01/30

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#10114] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — <noreply@...>

Patches item #8309, was opened at 2007-01-30 15:25

16 messages 2007/01/30
[#10131] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/31

[#10132] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Paulo Kh <paulo.koch@...> 2007/01/31

On 2007/01/31, at 06:07, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10137] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/31

Hi,

[#10139] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2007/01/31

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:19:34AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10143] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/02/01

Hi,

Re: System V IPC in standard library?

From: "Stephen Duncan" <stephen.duncan@...>
Date: 2007-01-02 17:59:02 UTC
List: ruby-core #9834
I currently do work with System V message queues using Java + JTux,
and would love for it be easier to do with Ruby by not having to get
it separately and compile it.

-Stephen

On 12/24/06, Steven Jenkins <steven.jenkins@ieee.org> wrote:
> Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
> > What about:
> >
> >   typedef #{type} conftest_type;
> >   int conftestval[sizeof(conftest_type)?1:-1];
> >   int main() {return 0;}
> >   int t() {return conftestval[0];}
>
> That should work.
>
> > Though it may be enough just by removing static of conftestval.
> >
> >> Beyond optimization, however, there's a deeper problem, at least in
> >> principle. The C standard specifies only how a conforming implementation
> >> must behave when presented with a conforming input. Such an
> >> implementation is not required to diagnose errors or fail when presented
> >> with a non-conforming input. Given that, it seems problematic to detect
> >> a missing type by generating a compile-time error. I can't think of
> >> another way, unfortunately.
> >
> > You're right, but I can't imagine such compiler to be useful.
> > The current assumption would be enough until somebody complains
> > about it actually.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> Do you have an opinion about including sysvipc in the standard library?
>
> Steve
>
>


-- 
Stephen Duncan Jr
www.stephenduncanjr.com

In This Thread