9208-9739

8999-9356 subjects 9500-10206

[PATCH] RDoc: preserve special chars in <tt> Was: Re: bug in rdoc?
9208 [jan.svitok@g] ...

[ ruby-Bugs-6188 ] Net::HTTP off-by-one error in POST data
9209 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6188, was opened at 2006-10-17 00:31

A possible optimization in Bignum/Division?
9216 [j.vimal@gm i] ...
9217 [znmeb@ce ma ] IIRC a long time ago someone compared Ruby's native Bignum arithmetic
9224 [neleai@se na] Now its same. unless divisor fits to BDIGIT (at most platforms unsigned int). when we do

parse.y unused str_sword and str_dword
9221 [Thomas.Enebo] I believe these two enums are no unused in parse.y (and resulting
9222 [nobu@ru y- a] Indeed.  Forgot to use them.

test unit addition
9316 [jay@ja fi ld] Since Test::Unit is an xUnit port, it's not surprising that defining
+ 9321 [nobu@ru y- a] module Test::Unit
+ 9335 [ntalbott@gm ] I'm playing with this now for the next major version of test/unit, but

The Plan for Speeding Up CSV
9317 [james@gr yp ] At the roundtable discussion with Matz last night, the question was
9318 [nakahiro@sa ] See [ruby-talk:194955] and the following mails.  You think CSV is an IO
9330 [james@gr yp ] Sure, I understand that point of view and that's completely fine with

[ ruby-Patches-6279 ] DateTime doesn't parse timezone correctly
9323 [noreply@ru y] Patches item #6279, was opened at 2006-10-23 05:03

[ ruby-Bugs-6282 ] loading file again doesnt update debugger text
9324 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6282, was opened at 2006-10-23 07:17

[ ruby-Bugs-6314 ] Bitwise inversion of 32 bit numbers with most significant bit set results in overflow
9329 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6314, was opened at 2006-10-25 08:59

[ ruby-Patches-6321 ] Make open-uri capable of handling HTTP methods other than GET
9331 [noreply@ru y] Patches item #6321, was opened at 2006-10-25 16:03

[ ruby-Patches-6323 ] BigMath::log can be made much faster
9332 [noreply@ru y] Patches item #6323, was opened at 2006-10-25 16:32
9333 [matz@ru y- a] The maintainer, Shigeo Kobayashi, refused to apply this patch, since
9334 [znmeb@ce ma ] Somewhere buried in my collection of books are some test suites for math

ruby-fr@ruby-lang.org is broken
9336 [matju@ar en ] ...

[ ruby-Bugs-6348 ] blocks with arity of 1 behave inconsistently when passed more or less parameters
9337 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6348, was opened at 2006-10-27 00:15

String#== vs. Symbol#== speed  (was Re: Symbol < String in Ruby > 1.8)
9338 [sroberts@un ] Of course, code is below. Its in the context of profiling I did of an
9339 [matz@ru y- a] By this benchmark, their difference could be found by comparing the
9340 [rick.denatal] sym0 = str0.to_sym

[PATCH] array.c - defining aliases as aliases
9341 [djberg96@gm ] ...
9342 [james@gr yp ] Uh, are they?
9343 [phurley@gm i] I was thrown too, not map and map!, but rather
9344 [Daniel.Berge] Yeah, whoops, sorry for the confusion.  Hopefully the patch is clear.

[ ruby-Bugs-6358 ] marshal error with TYPE_SYMLINK
9345 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6358, was opened at 2006-10-27 15:58

[ ruby-Patches-6366 ] Fix for bug 3245
9346 [noreply@ru y] Patches item #6366, was opened at 2006-10-27 15:50

[ ruby-Bugs-6368 ] Time Changes Zones
9347 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6368, was opened at 2006-10-27 23:45

Why does Certificate.check_private_key call OSSL_Warning?
9348 [sroberts@un ] And is there a way to disable this check, other than $-w = false?

[ ruby-Bugs-6369 ] core dump using mkmf
9349 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6369, was opened at 2006-10-27 22:55

[ ruby-Bugs-6370 ] RDoc for Kernel#select same as IO.select
9350 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6370, was opened at 2006-10-28 04:36

[RCR] Module#method_aliased and Module#singleton_method_aliased
9351 [djberg96@gm ] ...
9352 [marcel@ve ni] Could you not avoid the alias keyword and always use Module#alias_method
+ 9353 [djberg96@gm ] I think it would be more work and you would have to be extremely
+ 9354 [drbrain@se m] I almost always use alias and almost never alias_method.

[ ruby-Bugs-6400 ] Time Does not Respect Subclasses
9357 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6400, was opened at 2006-10-30 18:20

[ ruby-Patches-6418 ] The overriding of signals by the interpreter does not restore the siginfo setting.
9363 [noreply@ru y] Patches item #6418, was opened at 2006-10-31 22:50
9400 [nobu@ru y- a] ruby_init() is for initialization of the interpreter, including signal

Re: [ ruby-Bugs-6413 ] Some Time Constructors Fail to Call initialize
9364 [sylvain.joye] ???????

[ ruby-Bugs-6431 ] net/ftp should handle sending of data, not files
9365 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6431, was opened at 2006-11-01 11:41

[ ruby-Bugs-6433 ] Range of Symbols yields only first item as Symbol
9366 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6433, was opened at 2006-11-01 11:51

[ ruby-Patches-6437 ] reduce memory usage of rdoc
9367 [noreply@ru y] Patches item #6437, was opened at 2006-11-01 10:56

[ ruby-Bugs-6438 ] cvs diff broken for pserver
9368 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6438, was opened at 2006-11-01 11:05
9374 [matz@ru y- a] Strange.  We don't have configure.bat in our repository.
9375 [ryand-ruby@z] % cvs -q diff -u

fatal flaw in popen4 on windows? [WAS] Re: Nonblocking IO read
9369 [ara.t.howard] not only is that true but, afaik, it's why popen4 cannot even work on windows!

[ ruby-Patches-6442 ] Array#shuffle and Array#shuffle!
9370 [noreply@ru y] Patches item #6442, was opened at 2006-11-01 16:08
9373 [matz@ru y- a] 1.9 already has Array#shuffle.  I have no specific plan to add this to

[ ruby-Bugs-6443 ] ri for specific method returns suggestion to refine search if there are similarly named methods
9371 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6443, was opened at 2006-11-01 13:19

[ ruby-Bugs-6444 ] Set#^ (xor) is broken - patch included
9372 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6444, was opened at 2006-11-01 14:24

[ ruby-Bugs-6453 ] rdoc --fmt=html throws Segmentation faults
9376 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6453, was opened at 2006-11-02 14:49

Re: rdoc parsing bug, confused by block "end" in class-context
9377 [ryand-ruby@z] Please file a bug on http://rubyforge.org/projects/ruby . Thanks.

test
9378 [ara.t.howard] please ignore.
9380 [james@gr yp ] I tried, really I did, but I was weak...

fatal flaw in popen4 on windows? [WAS] Re: Nonblocking IO read (fwd)
9379 [ara.t.howard] i bcc'd ruby-core on this, but it didn't make it through is bcc blocked?

Native Thread extension for 1.8
9381 [abhisek@ru y] Due to certain requirement, I was thinking of doing a native thread
9481 [halostatue@g] To the best of my knowledge, this is not possible.

[ ruby-Bugs-6468 ] the sign of a number is omitted when squaring it. -2**2 vs (-2)**2
9382 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6468, was opened at 2006-11-03 17:25
+ 9383 [nwiger@sc a.] FWIW, I don't see how this is a bug or even bad behavior. Other
+ 9384 [lukfugl@gm i] The "problem" lies in the confluence of precedence with the syntax of
  9394 [vjoel@pa h. ] Any yet
  + 9395 [lukfugl@gm i] Good points, I don't know.
  + 9396 [matz@ru y- a] People with mathematical background demands precedence for ** being
    9397 [vjoel@pa h. ] irb(main):001:0> x=2
    9398 [znmeb@ce ma ] I think I want to weigh in here as a mathematician and long-time
    9399 [vjoel@pa h. ] Ok,

merge YARV into Ruby
9385 [ko1@at ot ne] At last, we're starting to merge YARV into Ruby.
+ 9387 [james@gr yp ] I was aware of all of these.
| 9388 [ko1@at ot ne] eval('a = 1')
| 9389 [james@gr yp ] Will this be "fixed" in YARV at some point, or is this permanent?
+ 9392 [decoux@mo lo] Well, there is a long time that I've not looked at the source but, and
+ 9405 [k.shutemov@g] Why Subversion? Please look at Git. I think that distributed
  + 9406 [sylvain.joye] (Disclaimer: I'm now using a distributed VCS almost exclusively)
  | 9417 [ser@ge ma e-] Here's +1 for Subversion for Ruby.
  | 9428 [k.shutemov@g] Do you think that distributed repository will not be useful for adding
  | + 9439 [ser@ge ma e-] The problem is that distributed repositories, by design, are centrally
  | | 9441 [binary42@gm ] I don't know where you got that. I use distributed version control
  | | + 9442 [joshua@re er] After I heard about the "poison patch" problem with Darcs, I basically
  | | | + 9443 [joshua@re er] Here are a few more references (I'm not sure if this is strictly the
  | | | + 9444 [binary42@gm ] That problem is real but it is quite misrepresented in the blog post.
  | | + 9445 [ser@ge ma e-] Because that's how decentralized VCS are designed.  By definition,
  | + 9482 [halostatue@g] I think exactly that. IME, distributed SCMs are wasteful of resources
  |   9483 [now@bi wi se] And I'd *almost* wish people would just shut the fuck up and drop this
  |   + 9485 [murphy@ru yc] irb(main):016:0> text.scan(/fuck/i).size
  |   | + 9486 [now@bi wi se] Yes, but this isn't the first time we've had this discussion.  Or the
  |   | | 9496 [hgs@dm .a .u] Oh, I thought it was "Four Weddings and a Funeral" you were referencing :-)
  |   | + 9491 [ser@ge ma e-] charset="iso-8859-1"
  |   + 9487 [binary42@gm ] Please don't limit people to your own views of what is appropriate.
  + 9407 [ville.mattil] Git's windows support is poor, it requires cygwin which will make
  | 9409 [k.shutemov@g] Anonymous access for windows users can be provided via git-cvsserver.
  | 9410 [mrueckert@su] and write access for windows users?
  | 9411 [k.shutemov@g] - Currently cvsserver works over SSH connections for read/write
  | 9412 [joshua@re er] What advantages does git have over mercurial that makes it worth
  | 9413 [khaines@en g] I don't have a dog in the fight regarding vcs for yarv, but I have been
  | 9414 [k.shutemov@g] I have never use mercuria but Git seems to have more features and has
  | 9415 [mrueckert@su] should we start to count numbers on svn? *scnr*
  | 9418 [k.shutemov@g] We talk about about Git vs. Mercuria.
  | 9419 [mrueckert@su] i mentioned svk+svn as an option earlier.
  + 9408 [mrueckert@su] svn+svk - a good centralized core with a good client for
  + 9440 [chneukirchen] You'll like
  + 9446 [ko1@at ot ne] Because I am experienced with subversion (much more than CVS) and have
    + 9448 [murphy@ru yc] I'd vote for Subversion, too, only because I know it is great.
    + 9453 [k.shutemov@g] It's not an argument. I have never see documentation for subversion in
      + 9457 [mrueckert@su] but there is a russian version. and i am pretty sure you can read that.
      | 9459 [k.shutemov@g] can speak English.
      + 9458 [haisenko@co ] Since a lot of core Ruby programmers are Japanese, it IS an argument, IMHO.

[ ruby-Bugs-6474 ] IMAP error parsing bodystructure of multipart/mixed with message/delivery-status sub-part
9386 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6474, was opened at 2006-11-04 03:34

Re: eval in YARV (was: merge YARV into Ruby)
9390 [drbrain@se m] I like this change.  In the matz interpreter the ability to access
9391 [ko1@at ot ne] It will be Ruby's spec.

unsubscribe
9393 [ricadias@gm ] ...

[ ruby-Bugs-6513 ] RDoc: f95_parser needs patch to rdoc/option.rb
9401 [noreply@ru y] Bugs item #6513, was opened at 2006-11-06 00:30

fast mutexes for 1.8?
9402 [mental@ry ia] Many people have been using Thread.critical for locking because Ruby
+ 9403 [hgs@dm .a .u] Agreed.  But ruby-1.8.5/lib/thread.rb contains the definition of Mutex
| 9416 [mental@ry ia] That's okay for 1.8.  1.9 (YARV) will have to have its own
| 9424 [hgs@dm .a .u] OK, I thought you wanted to avoid that particularly.
| 9427 [mental@ry ia] Monitors, like Java has.  IIRC, they're the fundamental locking
| 9432 [hgs@dm .a .u] So if a monitor must be built around a Mutex, and the only way to build
| 9437 [mental@ry ia] Yes.  All you need is an atomic test-and-set operation.
| 9438 [gus@pr gr ss] In 1.8, threads are "green threads" and thread scheduling is done by the
+ 9404 [khaines@en g] The main problem with Mutex in 1.8 is that by using push and shift to
| 9420 [mental@ry ia] Principally, pushing the whole thing into C and using a better data
| + 9421 [khaines@en g] Given that IOWA already uses an internal version of Mutex, I'm game for
| + 9422 [hgs@dm .a .u] I wish Ruby came with a C coded Heap out of the box.  Too late to add that
| + 9423 [joshua@re er] If we are using native threads, why not use whatever native mutexes the
|   + 9425 [mental@ry ia] Just to be clear, I'm focusing on the 1.8 implementation, which won't be
|   | 9426 [joshua@re er] Ahh, sorry, I misunderstood.
|   + 9429 [drbrain@se m] Yes.  Have you read Koichi's presentations?
|     9431 [nicksieger@g] ...
+ 9430 [drbrain@se m] As has been discussed further down in this thread, there isn't much
  + 9433 [vjoel@pa h. ] Obvious point, but that goes for Thread.exclusive, too. Use
  + 9434 [mental@ry ia] #lock and #unlock aren't that much cheaper (see benchmark from other
  + 9435 [hgs@dm .a .u] It is really only a lock; begin; yield; ensure; unlock; end;
    9454 [hgs@dm .a .u] To follow up on my own suggestion, I have attempted this optimization
    9472 [brent@mb ri ] At RubyConf 2005 I gave an off-the-wall little talk about the
    + 9473 [vjoel@pa h. ] I've been complaining about this for *years*.
    | + 9504 [mental@ry ia] Oh, nice.
    | + 9516 [mental@ry ia] Hmm.  Having looked into this, I'm not sure breaking the lock at fork is
    |   9519 [vjoel@pa h. ] That's a good point. There are special cases where you know the data
    |   + 9520 [brent@mb ri ] I was surprised to hear this, so I, too, did some digging.
    |   | + 9538 [mental@ry ia] pthreads doesn't appear to require anything more specific than "wake
    |   | + 9539 [khaines@en g] This isn't necessarily the fast approach.  This is what Sync does when
    |   |   + 9553 [brent@mb ri ] Yes, I agree that there is no reason to limit the Atomic class to Fixnums.
    |   |   | 9559 [mental@ry ia] Yeah.  Once I get the "traditional" locking situation straightened out,
    |   |   + 9558 [mental@ry ia] o=20
    |   |     9562 [hgs@dm .a .u] And it is just a queue, not a priority queue.  Thread#priority  ....
    |   + 9524 [mental@ry ia] Or simply kill them as if they had been killed with Thread.kill.  That
    + 9517 [mental@ry ia] In other words, a non-waiting thread could potentially "jump the queue"
      9518 [mental@ry ia] specification and the pthreads manpages permit threads not in the wait

[OT] Casual discussion of SCM (was: merge YARV into Ruby)
9447 [binary42@gm ] And that is why it is so great! Notice that we just "fabricate" the
9479 [meta@po ox c] For centralized development, I'd pick SVN.
9484 [chneukirchen] Which platform are you missing?

optimized mutex results (Was: Re: fast mutexes for 1.8?)
9449 [mental@ry ia] user     system      total        real
9514 [charles.nutt] These are very promising results. With a similar native implementation

Bikeshed: No more Symbol < String?
9450 [murphy@ru yc] It seems matz decided to remove String from Symbol's ancestors 5 days
+ 9451 [nohmad@gm il] See [ruby-core: 09188]
+ 9452 [matz@ru y- a] Even though it is highly against DuckTyping, people tend to use case
  + 9455 [nohmad@gm il] Sorry for noise. I misread. Go bike.
  + 9456 [dblack@wo bl] Is "bikeshed" shorthand for "unimportant"? :-)  I would disagree
  + 9460 [james@gr yp ] Matz, just curious but what was your opinion on the idea of removing
  | 9462 [matz@ru y- a] That may work, but it introduces unnecessary compatibility issues.  If
  | 9465 [dblack@wo bl] But it would be better, I think, to break this at 2.0, than to have
  | 9468 [matz@ru y- a] It's matter of trade-off.  We have to pay far more than we gain if we
  | 9471 [zimba.tm@gm ] Too bad, I was rejoicing to remove the need of
  | + 9474 [now@bi wi se] For one data structure with questionable semantics?
  | | 9475 [zimba.tm@gm ] It's one of the most used data structure with the Array I think
  | | 9476 [now@bi wi se] Hash may well be, but HashWithIndifferentAccess is a "hack" created
  | | 9477 [dblack@wo bl] I agree.  It's nice that it can be done, but if Symbol is just a
  | + 9480 [murphy@ru yc] Wait...why would Symbol < String have removed the need of HWIA? It's
  + 9461 [chneukirchen] Thank you.

Re: No more Symbol < String?
9463 [murphy@ru yc] No, it should mean: "Low-Tech Discussion on Ruby, please accelerate". It
+ 9464 [pbrannan@at ] But Strings as Hash keys are automatically frozen.  This behavior might
+ 9466 [nobu@ru y- a] - Symbols are never garbage-collected
  9467 [now@bi wi se] It seems that people have a very hard time understanding this.  It may
  9469 [matz@ru y- a] No.

Ruby performanmce improvements
9470 [michael.seli] I know you guys are in the middle of YARV stuff, but I thought you might be
+ 9478 [znmeb@ce ma ] Could you run my matrix benchmark against these and post the results
| 9488 [michael.seli] Thanks for another benchmark to try. I got around a 30% performance
+ 9489 [matz@ru y- a] Show us the code.  I'd like to merge it if it doesn't break anything.
+ 9511 [charles.nutt] It's perhaps interesting to note I have made similar changes in the past

Re: Ruby performance improvements
9490 [michael.seli] ...
+ 9521 [michael.seli] However
| + 9523 [charles.nutt] Interesting...we could probably do the same in JRuby to reduce the
| + 9530 [Thomas.Enebo] Actually, in JRuby I have changed all dvar and localvars (same for
+ 9660 [sylvain.joye] I'd like to test the patch (I'm interested in this kind of performance
  9666 [michael.seli] ...
  9734 [khaines@en g] I applied this patch for testing and discovered that the version that it
  9739 [michael.seli] Thank you for testing my patches.

NodeDump for 1.8.5
9492 [ceo@ha th rn] Does anyone know of a version of NodeDump that works
9501 [pbrannan@at ] Nodewrap and ParseTree both make decent alternatives.

Future Plans for Ruby 1.8 Series
9493 [shyouhei@ic ] This week Japanese rubyists were talking about the future of ruby_1_8
+ 9494 [sylvain.joye] Since 1.9.1 is planned for Christmas *2007*, choice (2) would make *no*
| 9498 [shyouhei@ic ] Matz, there is another one who believes 1.8 has not yet been feature
+ 9495 [haisenko@co ] Is there no tag for 1.8.5 ? If there is, why not branch from that, apply the
| 9497 [shyouhei@ic ] No.  That's plan (1).  But once you make a branch on CVS you cannot
+ 9499 [murphy@ru yc] excuse me - why is it called "stable branch" if it isn't stable enough
+ 9503 [shyouhei@ic ] You may not be familiar with it. STABLE is a *BSD technical term and
| 9536 [nwiger@sc a.] I don't want to hijack this thread, but the "STABLE" word causes many
| 9537 [murphy@ru yc] Yes, another reason. Even with 1.9, I guess 1.8.x will stay in use
+ 9507 [ruby-core@wh] I would like (1), since I have hopes of adding sandbox to the ruby_1_8 line and
| 9509 [charles.nutt] I agree, because I have other hopes for additions to 1.8 (like the
+ 9510 [drbrain@se m] I like (1).  This allows new things to be added to 1_8 provided they
+ 9623 [sean@cy er a] I'm quite accustomed to the FreeBSD development strategy. So I'd go for
threads.html
top