I downloaded what I thought was the 1.8.5 stable branch from
ruby-lang.org tonight. Here's what I got:
ruby -v
ruby 1.9.0 (2006-08-04) [i686-linux]
Matz, is there something you want to tell us? 
- Dan
Hi,
路路路
In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?" on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:50:05 +0900, "Daniel Berger" <djberg96@gmail.com> writes:
I downloaded what I thought was the 1.8.5 stable branch from
ruby-lang.org tonight. Here's what I got:ruby -v
ruby 1.9.0 (2006-08-04) [i686-linux]
Matz, is there something you want to tell us?
No. In fact, it not what I want to tell you. I would lose my play
toy when it become "stable". 
Anyway, I see no problem either on CVS nor snapshot. How did you get
your "1.8.5 stable branch" tonight?
matz.
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
>I downloaded what I thought was the 1.8.5 stable branch from
>ruby-lang.org tonight. Here's what I got:
>
>> ruby -v
>ruby 1.9.0 (2006-08-04) [i686-linux]
>
>Matz, is there something you want to tell us?No. In fact, it not what I want to tell you. I would lose my play
toy when it become "stable".Anyway, I see no problem either on CVS nor snapshot. How did you get
your "1.8.5 stable branch" tonight?matz.
I tried two different things. I did the CVS thing first:
cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.ruby-lang.org:/src login
cvs -z4 -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.ruby-lang.org:/src co ruby
When that gave me 1.9 I removed it, then I went to
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/20020102.html and clicked on "stable
snapshot", downloaded the stable-snapshot.tar.gz file, and built that.
Still 1.9.
On an unrelated note, I think I discovered a bug in 1.9:
?q => 'q' # should be 113, right?
Regards,
Dan
路路路
In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?" > on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:50:05 +0900, "Daniel Berger" <djberg96@gmail.com> writes:
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
>I downloaded what I thought was the 1.8.5 stable branch from
>ruby-lang.org tonight. Here's what I got:
>
>> ruby -v
>ruby 1.9.0 (2006-08-04) [i686-linux]
>
>Matz, is there something you want to tell us?No. In fact, it not what I want to tell you. I would lose my play
toy when it become "stable".Anyway, I see no problem either on CVS nor snapshot. How did you get
your "1.8.5 stable branch" tonight?matz.
I tried two different things. I did the CVS thing first:
cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.ruby-lang.org:/src login
cvs -z4 -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.ruby-lang.org:/src co rubyWhen that gave me 1.9 I removed it, then I went to
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/20020102.html and clicked on "stable
snapshot", downloaded the stable-snapshot.tar.gz file, and built that.
Still 1.9.On an unrelated note, I think I discovered a bug in 1.9:
?q => 'q' # should be 113, right?
Regards,
That's not a bug, it's a feature! Ruby 1.9 is on the path to 2.0 which gets rid of the whole 1 byte == 1 character thing.
路路路
On Aug 3, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Daniel Berger wrote:
In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?" >> on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:50:05 +0900, "Daniel Berger" >> <djberg96@gmail.com> writes:
Dan
You wanted:
cvs -z4 -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.ruby-lang.org:/src co -r ruby_1_8 ruby
路路路
On Aug 3, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Daniel Berger wrote:
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Anyway, I see no problem either on CVS nor snapshot. How did you get
your "1.8.5 stable branch" tonight?I tried two different things. I did the CVS thing first:
cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.ruby-lang.org:/src login
cvs -z4 -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.ruby-lang.org:/src co rubyWhen that gave me 1.9 I removed it
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant
I thought it's a 1 Fixnum == 1 character thing?
Well, this change will get really funny. There are many hidden
places where code relies on ?X giving a Fixnum. Including REXML.
路路路
Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 3, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Daniel Berger wrote:
On an unrelated note, I think I discovered a bug in 1.9:
?q => 'q' # should be 113, right?That's not a bug, it's a feature! Ruby 1.9 is on the path to 2.0
which gets rid of the whole 1 byte == 1 character thing.
--
Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/
I cannot tell you how annoying it is to work with binary data strings
in C# when everything is unicode. Can the new Ruby support old 1byte =
1character strings as well?
Les
路路路
On 8/4/06, Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>
> On an unrelated note, I think I discovered a bug in 1.9:
>
> ?q => 'q' # should be 113, right?
>
> Regards,
>
That's not a bug, it's a feature! Ruby 1.9 is on the path to 2.0
which gets rid of the whole 1 byte == 1 character thing.
Eric Hodel wrote:
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Anyway, I see no problem either on CVS nor snapshot. How did you get
your "1.8.5 stable branch" tonight?I tried two different things. I did the CVS thing first:
cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.ruby-lang.org:/src login
cvs -z4 -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.ruby-lang.org:/src co rubyWhen that gave me 1.9 I removed it
You wanted:
cvs -z4 -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.ruby-lang.org:/src co -r ruby_1_8 ruby
Thanks, though I've never done that in the past that I can recall, and something was definitely wrong with the 'stable snapshot' link, which I've used for years. The fact that it was backdated 3 days when it reverted back to 1.8.5 tells me that *something* happened. That, or I need a heavy dose of Geritol.
But, whatever, it's working now.
Regards,
Dan
路路路
On Aug 3, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Daniel Berger wrote:
Hi,
That's not a bug, it's a feature! Ruby 1.9 is on the path to 2.0
which gets rid of the whole 1 byte == 1 character thing.I thought it's a 1 Fixnum == 1 character thing?
We'd like to add encoding information to "characters".
Well, this change will get really funny. There are many hidden
places where code relies on ?X giving a Fixnum. Including REXML.
We know. But it's the last chance to introduce those incompatible
changes.
matz.
路路路
In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?" on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:50:09 +0900, Stefan Scholl <stesch@no-spoon.de> writes:
Leslie Viljoen wrote:
.
>
> On an unrelated note, I think I discovered a bug in 1.9:
>
> ?q => 'q' # should be 113, right?
>
> Regards,
>
That's not a bug, it's a feature! Ruby 1.9 is on the path to 2.0
which gets rid of the whole 1 byte == 1 character thing.I cannot tell you how annoying it is to work with binary data strings
in C# when everything is unicode. Can the new Ruby support old 1byte =
1character strings as well?Les
Or do what Perl did: have "byte semantics" and "character semantics" and have a "pragma" that allows switching between the two. I forget whether Perl does it at "compile" time or run time ... for Ruby, run time would be the obvious choice, I think.
This bit me once on Perl. I had a program with a byte constant and a Perl upgrade broke a comparison for equality when the default switched from byte semantics to character semantics. Bah!
路路路
On 8/4/06, Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
路路路
In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?" on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:59:34 +0900, "Leslie Viljoen" <leslieviljoen@gmail.com> writes:
I cannot tell you how annoying it is to work with binary data strings
in C# when everything is unicode. Can the new Ruby support old 1byte =
1character strings as well?
Yes, Ruby 2.0 will support "binary" encoding as well as Unicode.
matz.
You are to blame either way. With these changes you fuel the
conspiracy theories (new Ruby, new books). Without them, people
will compare Ruby developers with PHP developers who are afraid
of change.
Regards,
Stefan
路路路
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?" > on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:50:09 +0900, Stefan Scholl <stesch@no-spoon.de> writes:
>> That's not a bug, it's a feature! Ruby 1.9 is on the path to 2.0
>> which gets rid of the whole 1 byte == 1 character thing.
>
>I thought it's a 1 Fixnum == 1 character thing?We'd like to add encoding information to "characters".
>Well, this change will get really funny. There are many hidden
>places where code relies on ?X giving a Fixnum. Including REXML.We know. But it's the last chance to introduce those incompatible
changes.
--
Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/
What do you do when you need both semantics in the same program?
James Edward Gray II
路路路
On Aug 4, 2006, at 8:58 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Leslie Viljoen wrote:
On 8/4/06, Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>
> On an unrelated note, I think I discovered a bug in 1.9:
>
> ?q => 'q' # should be 113, right?
>
> Regards,
>
That's not a bug, it's a feature! Ruby 1.9 is on the path to 2.0
which gets rid of the whole 1 byte == 1 character thing.I cannot tell you how annoying it is to work with binary data strings
in C# when everything is unicode. Can the new Ruby support old 1byte =
1character strings as well?Les
Or do what Perl did: have "byte semantics" and "character semantics" and have a "pragma" that allows switching between the two. I forget whether Perl does it at "compile" time or run time ... for Ruby, run time would be the obvious choice, I think.
This bit me once on Perl. I had a program with a byte constant and a Perl upgrade broke a comparison for equality when the default switched from byte semantics to character semantics. Bah!
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
<snip>
Back to the original subject, it appears that 1.8.5 is back:
/opt/test/bin/ruby -v
ruby 1.8.5 (2006-08-01) [sparc-solaris2.10]
Dated August 1st. Interesting.
- Dan
This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.
Anyone know someone who wants Ruby documents translated from Japanese into English?
Please reply OFF-LIST.
Thanks,
John
Hi,
路路路
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?" on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:59:34 +0900, "Leslie Viljoen" writes:
I cannot tell you how annoying it is to work with binary data strings
in C# when everything is unicode. Can the new Ruby support old 1byte =
1character strings as well?
Yes, Ruby 2.0 will support "binary" encoding as well as Unicode.
matz.
(Sorry, I should have changed the subject line).
聽聽聽
聽聽Anyone know someone who wants Ruby documents translated from Japanese into English?
聽聽聽
聽聽Please reply OFF-LIST
聽聽聽
聽聽Thanks,
聽聽John
Quoting James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net>:
> Leslie Viljoen wrote:
>>> .
>>> >
>>> > On an unrelated note, I think I discovered a bug in 1.9:
>>> >
>>> > ?q => 'q' # should be 113, right?
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> That's not a bug, it's a feature! Ruby 1.9 is on the path to 2.0
>>> which gets rid of the whole 1 byte == 1 character thing.
>>
>> I cannot tell you how annoying it is to work with binary data strings
>> in C# when everything is unicode. Can the new Ruby support old
>> 1byte =
>> 1character strings as well?
>>
>>
>> Les
>>
>>
> Or do what Perl did: have "byte semantics" and "character
> semantics" and have a "pragma" that allows switching between the
> two. I forget whether Perl does it at "compile" time or run
> time ... for Ruby, run time would be the obvious choice, I think.
>
> This bit me once on Perl. I had a program with a byte constant and
> a Perl upgrade broke a comparison for equality when the default
> switched from byte semantics to character semantics. Bah!What do you do when you need both semantics in the same program?
James Edward Gray II
I don't know ... I only needed byte semantics in the broken one, and I never got
around to reading any further in the documentation to see if it was selectable
at run time. Selectable at run time is obviously the way to go in a "scripting"
language, but I have no idea what the Perl folks did.
As I've noted before, I use Perl only for its original purpose (Practical
Extraction and Reporting Language), not as a "general purpose" tool for large
programs or as a component in a web server. 99% of my Perl code was written
with and will still run with Perl 4.
路路路
On Aug 4, 2006, at 8:58 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> On 8/4/06, Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com> wrote:
James Edward Gray II schrieb:
What do you do when you need both semantics in the same program?
Pragmas can have block scope in Perl:
{
use bytes;
# ...
}