[#6363] Re: rescue clause affecting IO loop behavior — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "D" == David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> writes:

17 messages 2000/11/14
[#6367] Re: rescue clause affecting IO loop behavior — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/11/14

Hello again --

[#6582] best way to interleaf arrays? — David Alan Black <dblack@...>

Hello --

15 messages 2000/11/26

[#6646] RE: Array Intersect (&) question — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

Ross asked something about widely known and largely ignored language (on

23 messages 2000/11/29
[#6652] RE: Array Intersect (&) question — rpmohn@... (Ross Mohn) 2000/11/29

aleksi.niemela@cinnober.com (Aleksi Niemel) wrote in

[#6723] Re: Array Intersect (&) question — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2000/12/01

> >Use a hash. Here's code to do both and more. It assumes that

[#6656] printing/accessing arrays and hashes — raja@... (Raja S.)

I'm coming to Ruby with a Python & Common Lisp background.

24 messages 2000/11/30

[ruby-talk:6003] Re: Custom installation (1.6.1)

From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Date: 2000-11-02 16:45:20 UTC
List: ruby-talk #6003
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, ts wrote:

>  Do you have applied the patch given in [ruby-talk:5150] ?
> 
>   http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/~poffice/mail/ruby-talk/5150
> 
How would a new user know: 
(a) where to look for this patch
(c) to what extent it had been tried and tested
(c) whether such a patch had been accepted and integrated into Ruby
(d) whether there were patches that obsolete this patch?

Should we not have ruby-1.6.1.X so that people can know where they are
with patches?  Is this a lot more work?  Would there be an impact on
1.6.2 development, or even 1.7.x development?  Would such a scheme to
too inflexible for our needs?
> 
> Guy Decoux
> 
	Hugh
	hgs@dmu.ac.uk




In This Thread