[#10209] Market for XML Web stuff — Matt Sergeant <matt@...>

I'm trying to get a handle on what the size of the market for AxKit would be

15 messages 2001/02/01

[#10238] RFC: RubyVM (long) — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2001/02/01
[#10364] Re: RFC: RubyVM (long) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2001/02/05

[#10708] Suggestion for threading model — Stephen White <spwhite@...>

I've been playing around with multi-threading. I notice that there are

11 messages 2001/02/11

[#10853] Re: RubyChangeRequest #U002: new proper name for Hash#indexes, Array#indexes — "Mike Wilson" <wmwilson01@...>

10 messages 2001/02/14

[#11037] to_s and << — "Brent Rowland" <tarod@...>

list = [1, 2.3, 'four', false]

15 messages 2001/02/18

[#11094] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

12 messages 2001/02/19

[#11131] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Robert Feldt wrote:

10 messages 2001/02/19

[#11251] Programming Ruby is now online — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

36 messages 2001/02/21

[#11469] XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig)

23 messages 2001/02/24
[#11490] Re: XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig) 2001/02/24

Michael Neumann <neumann@s-direktnet.de> wrote:

[#11491] Negative Reviews for Ruby and Programming Ruby — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/02/24

Hi all:

[#11633] RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

13 messages 2001/02/26

[#11652] RE: RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I like it!

14 messages 2001/02/27

[#11700] Starting Once Again — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

OK, I'm starting again with Ruby. I'm just assuming that I've

31 messages 2001/02/27
[#11712] RE: Starting Once Again — "Aaron Hinni" <aaron@...> 2001/02/27

> 2. So far I think running under TextPad will be better than running

[#11726] Re: Starting Once Again — Aleksi Niemel<zak@...> 2001/02/28

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aaron Hinni wrote:

[ruby-talk:11400] Suggestion: Slow RE mode

From: "Ben Tilly" <ben_tilly@...>
Date: 2001-02-23 18:28:00 UTC
List: ruby-talk #11400
I would like to see an optional way to force all RE
matches to fail before they succeed.

This seems like an absurd request, but bear with me.

It is easy to write an RE that looks like, say,
/^(\s*yada\s*)*$/ which will match very quickly if
it can match, but take seemingly forever to fail.
Auditing code to verify that it has no dangerous
REs is very difficult.  However this is exactly the
kind of mistake you would like to be able to test
for.

So the idea would be that whenever you compile an RE
you would compile 2 of them.  The first is guaranteed
to fail, and is run just to show you how slow the
failure mode of the RE is.  The second is the original
RE.

So in the slow mode you would first run:

  /^(\s*yada\s*)*$(?:(?!a)a)/

and deliberately not set $~, $`, etc, and then you
would try normally with:

  /^(\s*yada\s*)*$/

Routinely try the slow mode in your testing suites, and
you can have some confidence that your program does not
have a disasterous RE waiting to trip you up.

Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

In This Thread

Prev Next