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,
In message “Re: Ruby stable branch is…1.9?”
on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:50:05 +0900, “Daniel B.”
[email protected] 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.On Aug 3, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Daniel B. wrote:
|> ruby -v
matz.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.
Logan C. [email protected] wrote:
On Aug 3, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Daniel B. 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.
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.
Yukihiro M. wrote:
|
|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:[email protected]:/src login
cvs -z4 -d :pserver:[email protected]:/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
Yukihiro M. [email protected] wrote:
|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.
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
Hi,
In message “Re: Ruby stable branch is…1.9?”
on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:50:09 +0900, Stefan S.
[email protected] 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.
matz.On 8/4/06, Logan C. [email protected] 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
On Aug 4, 2006, at 8:58 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature! Ruby 1.9 is on the path to 2.0
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 G. II
Leslie V. wrote:
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!
Hi,
In message “Re: Ruby stable branch is…1.9?”
on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:59:34 +0900, “Leslie V.”
[email protected] 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.Yukihiro M. wrote:
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.
Quoting James Edward G. II [email protected]:
Regards,
LesWhat do you do when you need both semantics in the same program?
James Edward G. 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.
James Edward G. II schrieb:
What do you do when you need both semantics in the same program?
Pragmas can have block scope in Perl:
{
use bytes;
…
}
Anyone know someone who wants Ruby documents translated from Japanese
into English?
Please reply OFF-LIST.
Thanks,
John
Yukihiro M. [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
In message “Re: Ruby stable branch is…1.9?”
on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:59:34 +0900, “Leslie V.” 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).
Anyone know someone who wants Ruby documents translated from Japanese
into English?
Please reply OFF-LIST
Thanks,
John
On Aug 3, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Daniel B. wrote:
Yukihiro M. 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:[email protected]:/src login
cvs -z4 -d :pserver:[email protected]:/src co rubyWhen that gave me 1.9 I removed it
You wanted:
cvs -z4 -d :pserver:[email protected]:/src co -r ruby_1_8 ruby
–
Eric H. - [email protected] - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant
Eric H. wrote:
When that gave me 1.9 I removed it
You wanted:
cvs -z4 -d :pserver:[email protected]:/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