[#955] Ruby 1.4.3 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Ruby 1.4.3 is out, check out:
1 message
1999/12/07
[#961] Ruby compileable by C++ compiler? — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
Hi,
8 messages
1999/12/10
[#962] Re: Ruby compileable by C++ compiler?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
1999/12/10
Hi,
[#963] Re: Ruby compileable by C++ compiler?
— Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@...>
1999/12/10
Wei,
[#964] Bastion or SecurityManager for Ruby? — Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@...>
Hi,
15 messages
1999/12/10
[#966] Re: Bastion or SecurityManager for Ruby?
— nakajima kengo<ringo@...>
1999/12/10
Hello Clemens,
[#967] Re: Bastion or SecurityManager for Ruby?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
1999/12/10
Hi,
[#989] a question about to_i — Friedrich Dominicus <Friedrich.Dominicus@...>
Sorry, I'm quite new to ruby. But I encounterd the following problem. If
17 messages
1999/12/19
[ruby-talk:00962] Re: Ruby compileable by C++ compiler?
From:
matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date:
1999-12-10 08:18:43 UTC
List:
ruby-talk #962
Hi,
In message "[ruby-talk:00961] Ruby compileable by C++ compiler?"
on 99/12/10, Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@gmx.net> writes:
|That means, I have to compile ruby also with a C++ compiler. But many
|functions in the sources of ruby are declared/defined in K&R
|C-manner. That will not be accepted by our C++ compiler.
Hmmm. I'm afraid that would happen. sigh.
The reasons why I choose old style C are:
* on my early development environment (old Sun and Sony machine), no
ANSI compiler was available.
* I really hate the style like following; it's ugly.
function(VALUE arg1, VALUE arg2,
struct tm *timeout,
int n) {
...
}
At present, I guess all compilers can understand ANSI style, so that
the former is no longer important. But...
matz.