108055-108481

107878-108870 subjects 108190-110168

Will Ruby 1.8.2 include tcl/tk 8.4.x instead of 8.3?
108055 [nospam@as lk] Will Ruby 1.8.2 release come with tcl/tk 8.4.7 libraries?
108061 [nagai@ai ky ] Is that a binary package of Ruby 1.8.2 ?

Macros in Ruby
108059 [ gm@na el gr] one of the features of the LISP family of languages that is missing from
+ 108080 [jim@fr ez .o] I've heard Matz say that Ruby will not support macros.
| + 108086 [ gm@na el gr] I 've heard that, but macros ARE usefull. Take a look
| + 108093 [batsman.geo@] I've sometimes found myself wanting macros for things that *cannot* be
| | 108098 [ptkwt@ar cn ] Can you give some examples?
| + 108095 [ptkwt@ar cn ] True, Matz has said that.  But if we can do something Macro-like with a
| + 108099 [mailinglists] And i hope that he never changes his opinion at this topic.
|   108113 [jesjones@mi ] Banning a feature because it can be misused is a pretty weak rationale.
|   + 108114 [dblack@wo bl] I think it's more a question of a judgement being made (by Matz) that
|   + 108117 [mailinglists] Banning an often misused features because it does not fit in the style of a
|   + 108119 [gsinclair@so] That itself is a weak argument.  Elsewhere in the thread it was
|   | 108247 [jesjones@mi ] Yes, that was asserted and one example was offered to support it. It
|   | 108254 [vjoel@PA H. ] What are some of the differences? I've been away from lisp for a while....
|   | + 108300 [bob.news@gm ] Just some minor remark...
|   | + 108301 [jesjones@mi ] Between Ruby and Lisp? To tell the truth I'm not entirely sure. The
|   |   108308 [gsinclair@so] Lisp lambda functions *do* do everything that Ruby blocks do.  But
|   |   108331 [jesjones@mi ] Well, what are the differences between blocks and proc objects? As far
|   |   108337 [gsinclair@so] Which do you prefer?
|   |   108355 [jesjones@mi ] I prefer a light-weight syntax for something as commonly used as
|   |   + 108358 [jim@we ri hh] It doesn't.  You could drop the implicitly passed blocks and always deal
|   |   | + 108367 [kristof@vl e] That's possible, but not in a block passing way (if that is
|   |   | + 108381 [halostatue@g] When I ported Diff::LCS, the Perl Algorithm::Diff version from which I
|   |   + 108366 [kristof@vl e] shouldn't that be '(1..10).map( &lambda { |n| n ** 2 } )'?
|   |   | + 108369 [bob.news@gm ] "Kristof Bastiaensen" <kristof@vleeuwen.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
|   |   | | + 108373 [batsman.geo@] => nil
|   |   | | | 108375 [bob.news@gm ] "Mauricio Fern?ndez" <batsman.geo@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
|   |   | | + 108374 [kristof@vl e] Oh, it seems I was wrong (after looking it up with ri).
|   |   | |   108376 [k@v2 tu io c] and is there any difference between lambda {...} and proc {...} ?
|   |   | |   + 108377 [kristof@vl e] Well, according to ri they are the same method, and a short
|   |   | |   + 108378 [dblack@wo bl] They're synonyms, but proc is being phased out, because it looks too
|   |   | + 108390 [gsinclair@so] No.  Jesse expressed a distaste for implicitly passed arguments (i.e.
|   |   |   108426 [jesjones@mi ] No, my argument was that having lambda + Proc + method + block seemed
|   |   + 108382 [pbrannan@at ] Remember how the lambda method works: it takes a block parameter and
|   |     108385 [ahoward@no a] lambda{ puts 'lambda' } => Proc:0xb74041a0
|   |     + 108392 [gsinclair@so] If you must have a shortcut, I think 'L' makes more sense.
|   |     | + 108396 [ruby-talk@pc] Or
|   |     | + 108398 [ahoward@no a] ~ > cat a.rb
|   |     |   + 108401 [mneumann@nt ] how about "fn" or "fun"? Only one character longer than "&" and IMO
|   |     |   | + 108404 [cmills@fr es] module Kernel
|   |     |   | + 108409 [ruby-talk@pc] And only two or one characters shorter than "proc",
|   |     |   | + 108412 [rcoder@gm il] alias fn proc
|   |     |   + 108407 [halostatue@g] def long_db_update(arg, callback = nil)
|   |     |     108410 [ahoward@no a] ducktype madness!  ;-)
|   |     + 108399 [hal9000@hy e] I've been in favor of this since the last rubyconf when I
|   |       108413 [dblack@wo bl] Creeping punctuationism.... :-)
|   |       108415 [hal9000@hy e] Smile when you say that. Oh, I guess you did.
|   |       108417 [dblack@wo bl] I admit I'd opt for inconsistency over further punctuation in this
|   |       + 108424 [hal9000@hy e] I can't put my finger on it either, but I see your point. And that is
|   |       | 108432 [ahoward@no a] it's no stranger than this to me
|   |       | 108481 [dblack@wo bl] (So your keyboard *does* have parens! :-)
|   |       + 108427 [pbrannan@at ] The way I see it, & and unary * (and possibly in the future unary **)
|   + 108120 [jamesUNDERBA] I tend to agree on this, preferring an enabling language to a B&D
|     + 108128 [dblack@wo bl] My ignorance of Lisp macros is almost complete.  Mainly I was going by
|     | 108133 [phubuh@ph bu] Lisp does allow you to completely redefine the syntax, but through
|     + 108136 [ptkwt@ar cn ] Agreed.
|       + 108149 [jamesUNDERBA] Oh, nice move.  Associating Lisp-style macros with static typing.
|       | 108156 [ptkwt@ar cn ] Ohhh no!! Another 7 years! ;-)
|       + 108249 [jesjones@mi ] This seems hard to do well. A good macro system really needs to be
|         108260 [ptkwt@ar cn ] Read my later post.  I was only using that debate as an example...
+ 108084 [vjoel@PA H. ] What you have defined are more like C macros, rather than LISP macros,
| + 108087 [ gm@na el gr] You are of course right. But you can do still usefull things. And I
| | 108158 [bob.news@gm ] "George Moschovitis" <gm@navel.gr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| + 108088 [jamesUNDERBA] Would Ruby macros, in the Lisp sense, have to manipulate the AST?
|   + 108089 [rcoder@gm il] manipulated as a simple tree of cons cells; Ruby code, even if a
|   | 108096 [ptkwt@ar cn ] ....and code translators, and lots of other cool things.
|   | 108116 [DocBoobenste] I'll add partial evaluation and refactoring to the list. This _would_
|   + 108111 [dblack@wo bl] I'm answering from not very much knowledge of Lisp, and I know the
|   + 108143 [matz@ru y- a] * Lisp does not have syntax.  They only have meta syntax
|     + 108170 [surrender_it] is this really a problem?
|     + 108245 [jesjones@mi ] I don't buy this argument at all. It's not like good Ruby programmers
|       + 108250 [vjoel@PA H. ] It's not really that hard to do something like this in ruby, but it is a
|       | 108299 [dennis.ranke] Or you could even do it like this, which looks (to me) even nicer than the
|       + 108251 [bg-rubytalk@] I'm sorry to say it, but I think you just proved Matz' point there.  I
|       | + 108270 [pbrannan@at ] This looks more like logging than debugging.  C macros typically make
|       | + 108295 [jesjones@mi ] It's not Ruby. It's a little domain specific language (DSL) tailored to
|       |   108317 [steven.jenki] I don't have an opinion on macros per se, but DSLs are (in my opinion) a
|       |   108332 [jesjones@mi ] Which is *exactly* what Dylan macros do. When you define a new Dylan
|       + 108278 [jim@we ri hh] I spent about 10 minutes coding this in Ruby (and it turned out to be
|       | 108296 [jesjones@mi ] Joel's solution was very cool. Certainly a lot better than any
|       + 108283 [halostatue@g] case hit_roll
|         108298 [jesjones@mi ] 1) It's much easier to glance at numbers like 0.75 and 0.20 and figure
|         + 108310 [halostatue@g] Hmm. I disagree. I mean, it's better to deal with code like Joel's (or
|         + 108333 [eyez@il uz o] I don't think you're right on this point. In the case that was
|           + 108336 [ysantoso-rub] Actually, the example Jesse gave was probably bad. A macro, like any
|           | + 108364 [bob.news@gm ] "Yohanes Santoso" <ysantoso-rubytalk@dessyku.is-a-geek.org> schrieb im
|           | + 108368 [surrender_it] not that much, did you see the MetaTags system or the various
|           | | 108370 [ysantoso-rub] class_info <<-DOC
|           | + 108371 [dblack@wo bl] You can already do that, if you don't mind a warning with -w :-)  But
|           | | 108372 [ysantoso-rub] docstring(:foo) #=> "This method will return <code>arg</code>"
|           | + 108379 [surrender_it] [nickel@UltimaThule nickel]$ irb --simple-prompt
|           + 108356 [jesjones@mi ] The macro is called percent-case for a reason. "0.75 case" means that
+ 108094 [ptkwt@ar cn ] <code snipped>
+ 108097 [ptkwt@ar cn ] Another comment: maybe instead of redefining 'require' you should just
| 108163 [ gm@na el gr] thanks for your comments. I 'll work on the code a bit and post a new
+ 108400 [sean@ce so t] I have to say that, for me, Ruby procs work just fine in place of macros,
  108402 [batsman.geo@] In this particular case, it can be solved with

Re: [OT] microphone (was [ANN] Rails 0.5.5: Windows, WEBrick, lots!)
108060 [robertm@sp l] Just to say I would be interested to know what the microphone is.
108062 [david@lo dt ] Sorry to forget about this thred. I got a Sony ECM-MS907. It's not

OpenVMS support?
108067 [johan.nilsso] just a quick question: has anyone ever attempted/succeeded to get Ruby
108144 [matz@ru y- a] AKIYOSHI Masamichi from HP is working on VMS port.  If you have
108294 [johan.nilsso] Thanks, I'll do that.

vim syntax files
108068 [graham@ro kc] See below for gory details from vim --version.
108078 [WBrown@is ft] Graham,
+ 108081 [hans@fu al n] Put that in ~/.vim/ftplugin and make sure you have "filetype plugin on"
+ 108115 [gsinclair@so] Download a tarball from [1] and install it.  Matchit functionality

convention for deep classes/modules
108070 [lists@za a. ] module Foo
+ 108074 [hal9000@hy e] This is possible now but wasn't always. So it may be that older code
+ 108075 [dblack@wo bl] module A
  108151 [nick@ac iv h] What is the reason they are not interchangeable?

ruby-LDAP and password change?
108071 [rasputnik@he] Just a quickie - anyone have a snippet to update a userPassword?
108160 [roberto@RE O] e_password = "{SHA}" + encode64(Digest::SHA1.new(password).digest).chomp

[Q] Rubygems
108079 [npoly_iki@ya] I am trying to install packages through rubygems
108083 [chad@ch df w] # Hello everybody
108135 [assaph@av ya] Or just copy over the open-uri.rb and net/*.rb from the latest snapshot
+ 108140 [chad@ch df w] Good thinking :)
+ 108192 [npoly_iki@ya] Worked like a charm. Thanks!

Re: Will Ruby 1.8.2 include tcl/tk 8.4.x instead of 8.3? RubyInstaller?
108082 [nospam@as lk] Correct.  I saw that tcl/tck 8.3 binaries are included when I install

OT: Quanta Plus (was Re: Favorite Ruby Editors (or IDE)
108085 [Tim.Hunter@s] I'll second this. Quanta Plus (part of KDE) is a wonderful HTML
108112 [mortonda@dg ] Toolbar macros? that's nifty.  :)
108152 [carl.youngbl] It looks like Quanta Plus costs money.  Is this true?
108155 [mailinglists] Quanta Plus is GPL.

Why does Ruby use both tcl83.dll and tk83.dll (instead of just tk83.dll)?
108091 [nospam@as lk] Why does Ruby (on windows) use both tcl83.dll and tk83.dll (instead of
108100 [mghallNO@SP ] Absolutely.  Tk operations and events are scripted in Tcl.
108147 [nospam@as lk] Seems that perl-tk somehow removed the Tcl part of Tk.
108157 [nagai@ai ky ] That is a 'ptk' library. It's similar but NOT same as a 'Tk'
108213 [nospam@as lk] I see!  Thanks for explaining.  The BWidgets look really nice so I'm

Request for two methods in Array class
108101 [mghallNO@SP ] 1. A new method, Array.combine  (needs a better name for general use).
+ 108102 [sean@ce so t] c = a.weave(b)
+ 108103 [mneumann@nt ] a.zip(b).map {|x,y| x*y}
| 108108 [ahoward@no a] but one less object creation
| + 108138 [cmills@fr es] Seems like a good idea.  After reading the chapter of Meyers book
| | 108141 [cmills@fr es] still seems useful to me though
| + 108159 [bob.news@gm ] "Ara.T.Howard" <ahoward@noaa.gov> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
+ 108150 [matz@ru y- a] Sounds nice.  But I'm not sure "combine" is a proper name for the
| + 108154 [k@v2 tu io c] I don't think we need another method for this. This sounds like the
| + 108161 [bob.news@gm ] "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| + 108166 [mneumann@nt ] combine sounds nice to me. it "combinates" two or more arrays (or
| | 108204 [DocBoobenste] How about (snipped from Sean's e-mail earlier)
| + 108168 [christoph.ne] I'm using Ruby 1.6.8.
| + 108174 [martindemell] Any number, I'd say
| + 108182 [dblack@wo bl] I know I'm being the voice of possibly excessive conservatism
|   + 108183 [gsinclair@so] That's good thinking.  The most compelling examples so far have been
|   | + 108186 [dblack@wo bl] The problem with having zip do auto-mapping is that you lose the
|   | + 108198 [kristof@vl e] Why not?  I find the idea of Caio Chassot very interesting.
|   + 108206 [DocBoobenste] That's a strong point. Elaborating a bit more on that, perhaps what is
|     + 108210 [ahoward@no a] generic iterator functionality will give something close to this - using the
|     + 108224 [kristof@vl e] That's possible using the enumerator module.
+ 108169 [k@v2 tu io c] Following on my suggestion that combine is just an extension of map, how
+ 108179 [tunah.usenet] How much of a performance problem would it be to have zip, if given a

Ruby's future
108105 [khowe@pe fn ] I've been contemplating using Ruby for an upcoming large project, but became
+ 108106 [david@lo dt ] The next major version is years ahead. And even when it does arrive, so
+ 108107 [mailinglists] Rite is not Ruby 2.0
| + 108110 [dblack@wo bl] The position Matz expressed at RubyConf last year was that 2.0
| + 108122 [ptkwt@ar cn ] But doesn't Ruby 2.0 contain Rite?
|   + 108132 [gsinclair@so] Rather confusingly, there will (apparently) be a 1.9 stable release.
|   + 108145 [matz@ru y- a] Ruby2 is a name for the language specification (if I may call it
+ 108109 [ptkwt@ar cn ] First off, Ruby 2.0 is a long ways off so there should be plenty of time
+ 108162 [bob.news@gm ] "Kevin Howe" <khowe@perfnet.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

who develops ri?
108118 [kristof@vl e] I would like to know who maintains currently ri
108125 [dave@pr gp o] Me!
108130 [kristof@vl e] Ok, thanks.  That's good news.  I'll just need to find out what happened
+ 108146 [dave@pr gp o] Thank you.
+ 108171 [jan.sabbe@st] You can order it at www.proxis.be. Het Computerwinkeltje has some ruby
  + 108172 [laurent.sans] The only Ruby book that I could find here in Belgium was the French
  | 108175 [Ruben.Vandeg] I've seen a Ruby book here in the FNAC in Leuven too (an English one),
  | 108185 [Richard_Dale] It's great to hear about all this ruby enthusiasm in Belgium. I went to the
  | 108195 [jan.sabbe@st] Yeah, the ruby tutorial at Fosdem was very cool. It sparked my interest
  + 108180 [dblack@wo bl] Keep in mind, though, that a new edition of the Pickaxe book is due

ruby-talk vs. ruby-curse (was Re: Favorite Ruby Editors (or IDE))
108123 [carl.youngbl] I thought that ruby-talk was one of the few places where I could avoid
108137 [alex@ve k. n] +1

KDevelop, WideStudio, IDE interfacing
108124 [drossruby@ya] 1) How to get your Kdevelop to look "pretty" and

performance stats of String#scan, strscan and a homemade approach
108127 [neoneye@ad l] because I recently have messed around with a ruby syntax colorer,
108164 [mneumann@nt ] There's no advantage in your case when using strscan. Try to store the

[BUG?] NoMethodError in REXML::Xpath.match in Ruby 1.9
108153 [alex@ve k. n] I have a problem matching a single-tag XML to paths like '/something',
108219 [ser@ge ma e-] That's your problem.  Actually, it is my problem; REXML shouldn't allow
108240 [alex@ve k. n] Oops... next time I'll try to RTFM more :(

GzipReader problem
108167 [jbshaldane@h] Shouldn't Zlib::GzipReader#read return "" when you try to read 0 bytes?
108207 [akr@m1 n. rg] I think it should be too.
108234 [jbshaldane@h] Thank you for the fix.
108269 [akr@m1 n. rg] As reading marshal.c, it seems that read(0) is called with an empty
108276 [jbshaldane@h] Yes, I had come to the same conclusion myself.  They are empty strings.

Stable snapshot ?
108173 [Meino.Cramer] While trying to retrieve the stable snapshot of Ruby I get a

Ruby 2 parser/compiler
108176 [isambart@ne ] I was wondering if the Ruby 2 parser/compiler will be written in Ruby.
+ 108271 [matz@ru y- a] It is possible.  But I am not going to do so.  Some other guys have
+ 108306 [george.marro] ByteCodeRuby [1] partially uses this approach. The parser is Ruby

New RCR: add Thread.atomic()
108177 [bob.news@gm ] Feel free to comment and vote.
108178 [decoux@mo lo] gsub!(/critical =/, 'self.\&')
108181 [bob.news@gm ] "ts" <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

Net::SSH & Proxies
108184 [robertm@sp l] Jamis,
108209 [jochen.i@gm ] I'd also love to see Net::SSH working through a HTTPS-Proxy!
108281 [jgb3@em il b] Patches are always welcome. :)
108318 [jochen.i@gm ] I currently posted a little patch on the net-ssh-devel mailing list that

soap4r via https (ssl)
108187 [csshsh@st uc] does soap4r also work via https? is it tested and works well?
+ 108193 [drossruby@ya] SOAP4R should work over HTTPS via ssl capable http
+ 108292 [nakahiro@gm ] Yes and yes, I hope.

[ANN] RubyConf presentation schedule now available
108188 [dblack@wo bl] Dear Rubyists,

[ANN] Ruby Central, Inc. gains tax-exempt status
108189 [dblack@wo bl] Dear Rubyists,
+ 108191 [dblack@wo bl] David A. Black
| + 108264 [djberg96@ho ] This is great!  Now, where's the PayPal link? :)
| | 108267 [dblack@wo bl] <acct@rubycentral.org>.  We're trying to get our organizational ducks
| + 108265 [djberg96@ho ] This is great!  Now, where's the PayPal link? :)
+ 108199 [lyle.johnson] Congratulations and thanks, David. I know that you and others have
+ 108277 [jamesUNDERBA] Well, that was quick.
threads.html
top