[#1263] Draft of the updated Ruby FAQ — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

33 messages 2000/02/08

[#1376] Re: Scripting versus programming — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>

Conrad writes:

13 messages 2000/02/15

[#1508] Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Ian Main <imain@...>

17 messages 2000/02/19
[#1544] Re: Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/02/23

Hello Ian,

[#1550] Re: Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Ian Main <imain@...> 2000/02/23

On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:56:10AM -0500, Yasushi Shoji wrote:

[#1516] Ruby: PLEASE use comp.lang.misc for all Ruby programming/technical questions/discussions!!!! — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>

((FYI: This was sent to the Ruby mail list.))

10 messages 2000/02/19

[#1569] Re: Ruby: constructors, new and initialise — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article

12 messages 2000/02/25

[ruby-talk:01568] Re: Ruby UNIX centric?

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-02-24 23:17:28 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1568
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to comp.lang.misc as well.

Muvaw Pnazte <bugathlon@yahoo.com> writes:

> So taking File as an example I can't see that chmod really belongs
> there. I'm not saying that we should have FSUnixLike (mix-in?) where we
> have functionality for such weird idioms like chmod. I feel that File
> should be more generic. I feel that program which successful operation
> depends on chmod, and thus is not runnable on DOS, should clearly point
> out it's using such feature.

For the chmod function, my belief is that Ruby simply relies on the C
library's 'chmod' call. I believe it's a Posix function, and most C
compilers have it in their library. So, Ruby programs are really no more
susceptible to this problem than regular C programs.

Under Cygwin on Windows, chmod does actually do something - you can use 
it to change a file's read-only status.

However, perhaps it might be an idea to do as you suggest and separate 
out other calls, which are Unix specific, and make them available as
optionally mix-ins.

  File.include_option('unix_features')
  Process.include_option('unix_features')

This will certainly boost both portability and make documentation
easier ;-)

Regards


Dave


In This Thread

Prev Next