[#23457] [Bug #1471] "Mutual join" deadlock detection faulty in 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 — John Carter <redmine@...>

Bug #1471: "Mutual join" deadlock detection faulty in 1.8.6 and 1.8.7

17 messages 2009/05/15

[#23483] [Bug #1478] Ruby archive — Oleg Puchinin <redmine@...>

Bug #1478: Ruby archive

29 messages 2009/05/16
[#29225] [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Luis Lavena <redmine@...> 2010/04/02

Issue #1478 has been updated by Luis Lavena.

[#30345] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2010/05/21

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 17:13, Luis Lavena <[email protected]> wrote:

[#30346] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Jonathan Nielsen <jonathan@...> 2010/05/21

> Thanks for your comment.

[#30347] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Jonathan Nielsen <jonathan@...> 2010/05/21

OK Hiroshi, I read some of the comments earlier in the thread that I

[#30355] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Caleb Clausen <vikkous@...> 2010/05/21

On 5/20/10, Jonathan Nielsen <[email protected]> wrote:

[#30364] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...> 2010/05/22

Hi,

[#23505] [Bug #1494] tempfile#unlink may silently fail on windows — Nicholas Manning <redmine@...>

Bug #1494: tempfile#unlink may silently fail on windows

19 messages 2009/05/19

[#23572] [Bug #1525] Deadlock in Ruby 1.9's VM caused by ConditionVariable.wait and fork? — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #1525: Deadlock in Ruby 1.9's VM caused by ConditionVariable.wait and fork?

27 messages 2009/05/27

[#23595] Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>

The RUBY_PLATFORM constant is documented in the latest Pickaxe as "The

17 messages 2009/05/28
[#23596] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Rick DeNatale <[email protected]> wr=

[#23602] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Luis Lavena <[email protected]> wrote:

[#23608] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Rick DeNatale <[email protected]> wr=

[#23609] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...> 2009/05/29

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Luis Lavena <[email protected]> wrote:

[ruby-core:23604] Re: Defining #name= at the class level

From: Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2009-05-28 22:39:08 UTC
List: ruby-core #23604
Excerpts from Yukihiro Matsumoto's message of Fri May 29 01:21:19 +0300 2009:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: [ruby-core:23593] Defining #name= at the class level"
>     on Fri, 29 May 2009 02:50:24 +0900, Gregory Brown <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> |1) Defined to work as MRI and YARV, in which case Rubinius would not
> |be compatible for this feature
> |2) Undefined, in which case, test/spec should be patched to not use
> |#name=, as it cannot reliably work across implementations
> |3) Forbidden.  In this case, it'd be nice to see the other
> |implementations fail as Rubinius does.
> 
> I expect Rubinius to work as others, so I choose 1).

There is a related question that I thought of when trying
to navigate through this particular problem: Module#name=
is not defined, why?

If it is thus to protect Module#name, would it be wrong
for an implementation to rely on Module#name being the
"real name" of the Module in some internal context? Or
if not, should Module#name= be defined at the core lib
level?


Eero
--
Magic is insufficiently advanced technology.


In This Thread