[#1026] Is this a bug? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
18 messages
2000/01/03
[#1053] rand() / drand48() — ts <decoux@...>
11 messages
2000/01/05
[#1055] Re: rand() / drand48()
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2000/01/05
[#1061] Re: rand() / drand48()
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
2000/01/07
Hi,
[#1067] Here docs not skipping leading spaces — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
5 messages
2000/01/08
[#1083] YADQ (Yet Another Dumb Question) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
12 messages
2000/01/10
[#1084] Infinite loop — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
17 messages
2000/01/11
[#1104] The value of while... — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
24 messages
2000/01/11
[#1114] Re: The value of while...
— Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
2000/01/12
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[#1128] Re: The value of while... — David Suarez de Lis <excalibor@...>
Hi all,
1 message
2000/01/12
[#1133] Re: Class variables... — David Suarez de Lis <excalibor@...>
Hi there,
2 messages
2000/01/12
[#1158] Is this expected behavior? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
6 messages
2000/01/21
[#1172] Re: Possible bug in ruby-man-1.4 — Huayin Wang <wang@...>
> |Well, I guess it comes down to what you mean by an integer
10 messages
2000/01/24
[#1177] Re: Possible bug in ruby-man-1.4
— Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
2000/01/25
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[#1188] Enumerable and index — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
5 messages
2000/01/27
[#1193] Semantics of chomp/chop — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
7 messages
2000/01/28
[#1197] Question about 'open' — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
8 messages
2000/01/30
[ruby-talk:01041] Re: Is this a bug?
From:
Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date:
2000-01-03 19:47:43 UTC
List:
ruby-talk #1041
Yasushi Shoji <yashi@yashi.com> writes: > sorry to jump in the middle of the discussion but.. Please do. > > > I think it is a kind of bug. Maybe, it will take some long time to > > > solve it and get been stable. > > > > Apart from the potential for confusion, I'm worried about > > portability. If the interpretation of a string of characters depends > > on the local, and on the way Ruby has been compiled, then scripts are > > not portable between machines, and that's a problem. > > It'd be better to use ascii char set only, if you are warring about > portability of your script. I believe an ascii-char-set-only-script > is not depending on the compile time options. Perhaps -w should warn about the use of non-seven-bit characters? Dave