Asp Forum - YAML on Ruby 1.8.1 and Ruby 1.8.2

Dido Sevilla

4/11/2005 9:49:00 AM

I've written several programs that use YAML to store their
configuration files, and I generally run them on Ruby 1.8.2.
Occasionally we have a setup with a Ruby 1.8.1 or older version around
and noticed that the YAML module on these older versions of Ruby
behaves differently from that of 1.8.2. In particular, this YAML
string:

"--- :abc"

produces different results from 1.8.1 and 1.8.2. Under 1.8.2, I get
the expected behavior, and

YAML::load("--- :abc") => :abc

However, under 1.8.1:

YAML:load("--- :abc") => ":abc"

This totally breaks my config file scheme and is incredibly annoying.
Apparently, copying the YAML module from 1.8.2 to 1.8.1 doesn't fix
this behavior. I've had to write a short function to fix this brain
damage, but I wonder if there is a better way.

8 Answers

Lionel Thiry

4/11/2005 4:38:00 PM

Dido Sevilla a écrit :
> I've written several programs that use YAML to store their
> configuration files, and I generally run them on Ruby 1.8.2.
> Occasionally we have a setup with a Ruby 1.8.1 or older version around
> and noticed that the YAML module on these older versions of Ruby
> behaves differently from that of 1.8.2. In particular, this YAML
> string:
>
> "--- :abc"
>
> produces different results from 1.8.1 and 1.8.2. Under 1.8.2, I get
> the expected behavior, and
>
> YAML::load("--- :abc") => :abc
>
> However, under 1.8.1:
>
> YAML:load("--- :abc") => ":abc"
>
> This totally breaks my config file scheme and is incredibly annoying.
> Apparently, copying the YAML module from 1.8.2 to 1.8.1 doesn't fix
> this behavior. I've had to write a short function to fix this brain
> damage, but I wonder if there is a better way.
>
>

I've already answered, but my post doesn't appear in newsgroup. I retry:

YAML::load( "--- !ruby/sym abc" ) => :abc

--
Lionel Thiry

rst0wxyz

8/21/2011 3:55:00 AM

On Aug 20, 8:38 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article <faa40c48-71f2-4180-84d5-67d4795d8...@e34g2000prn.googlegroups..com>,
> rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
>
>
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > > China Bond Default Gives US Leverage in any Economic War
>
> > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/276...
>
> > The title is misleading. The article did not say anything about
> > "China Bond Default.
>
> Read:
>
> "The PRC has remained in intentional default on its obligations to its
> bondholders for almost 60 years."
>
> http://bluecollarmuse.com/2011/08/17/a-us-tactical-advantag......
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/276...
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti

"...the $750 billion is in legally due and payable bonds
issued by the Chinese government and backed by the full
faith and credit thereof.

These were purchased by US citizens from 1900 to 1939
-----------------------------------------------------
and the debt was repudiated and intentionally defaulted
-------------------------------------------------------
on by the Chinese government.
----------------------------

Aren't you blaming the wrong government? From 1900 - 1911, the
Chinese government was the Qing Dynasty which was dead since 1911.

From 1912 - 1939, was the time of the Republic of China which is also
dead. What was once called the Republic of China is now Taiwan.

Whoever currently holding those bonds are holding worthless piece of
paper. Those governments have long disappeared.

The PRC has remained in intentional default on its
obligations to its bondholders for almost 60 years."

The PRC has nothing to do with those bonds.
They did not issue them.
You are blaming the wrong party.

usenet

8/21/2011 4:29:00 AM

In article <faa40c48-71f2-4180-84d5-67d4795d82bd@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
rst0 <rst0wxyz@yahoo.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > China Bond Default Gives US Leverage in any Economic War
> >
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/276...
>
> The title is misleading. The article did not say anything about
> "China Bond Default.

Read:

"The PRC has remained in intentional default on its obligations to its
bondholders for almost 60 years."

http://bluecollarmuse.com/2011/08/17/a-us-tactical-advantage-in-an-economic-war-w...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/276...

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

rst0wxyz

8/21/2011 2:16:00 PM

And I responded with:

These were purchased by US citizens from 1900 to 1939
-----------------------------------------------------
and the debt was repudiated and intentionally defaulted
-------------------------------------------------------
on by the Chinese government.
----------------------------

Aren't you blaming the wrong government?

From 1900 - 1911, the Chinese government was the Qing Dynasty which
was dead since 1911.

From 1912 - 1939, was the time of the Republic of China which is also
dead. What was once called the Republic of China is now Taiwan.

Whoever currently holding those bonds are holding worthless piece of
paper. Those governments have long disappeared. You can not blame
the PRC for old long gone governments' obligations which were none of
their doing.

The PRC has nothing to do with those bonds.
They did not issue them.
You are blaming the wrong party.

ltlee1

8/21/2011 2:30:00 PM

On Aug 21, 12:28 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article <faa40c48-71f2-4180-84d5-67d4795d8...@e34g2000prn.googlegroups..com>,
> rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
>
>
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > > China Bond Default Gives US Leverage in any Economic War
>
> > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/276...
>
> > The title is misleading. The article did not say anything about
> > "China Bond Default.
>
> Read:
>
> "The PRC has remained in intentional default on its obligations to its
> bondholders for almost 60 years."
>
> http://bluecollarmuse.com/2011/08/17/a-us-tactical-advantag......

The issues of who owed and own what between the US and China had been
sorted and resolved before there can be official diplomatic
relationship.

>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/276...
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti

demorising

8/21/2011 6:22:00 PM

On Aug 21, 10:30 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 12:28 am, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> > In article <faa40c48-71f2-4180-84d5-67d4795d8...@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > > > China Bond Default Gives US Leverage in any Economic War
>
> > > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/276...
>
> > > The title is misleading. The article did not say anything about
> > > "China Bond Default.
>
> > Read:
>
> > "The PRC has remained in intentional default on its obligations to its
> > bondholders for almost 60 years."
>
> >http://bluecollarmuse.com/2011/08/17/a-us-tactical-advantag......
>
> The issues of who owed and own what between the US and China had been
> sorted and resolved before there can be official diplomatic
> relationship.

According to the article:

'Despite being issued by a previous Chinese government, the current
government of China owes this money under accepted and recognized
international law. That law holds that an “… established and widely
recognized government of a nation is liable under international law
for the full faith and credit obligations of the established and
widely recognized predecessor government of the same nation.”

China has practically acknowledged and accepted responsibility for the
debt. In the late 1980s it settled some of these bonds issued in Great
Britain to regain access to British financial markets. In the late
1970s China settled American claims for property nationalized by it in
1949. Jonna Bianco at American Bondholders Foundation reports that
China has insisted the current Iraqi government be responsible for
Iraqi debt accrued under Saddam Hussein.'

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/276...
>
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti

ltlee1

8/21/2011 7:39:00 PM

On Aug 21, 2:21 pm, Demorising <demoris...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:30 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 21, 12:28 am, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
>
> > Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> > > In article <faa40c48-71f2-4180-84d5-67d4795d8...@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
> > > > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > > > > China Bond Default Gives US Leverage in any Economic War
>
> > > > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/276...
>
> > > > The title is misleading. The article did not say anything about
> > > > "China Bond Default.
>
> > > Read:
>
> > > "The PRC has remained in intentional default on its obligations to its
> > > bondholders for almost 60 years."
>
> > >http://bluecollarmuse.com/2011/08/17/a-us-tactical-advantag.......
>
> > The issues of who owed and own what between the US and China had been
> > sorted and resolved before there can be official diplomatic
> > relationship.
>
> According to the article:
>
> 'Despite being issued by a previous Chinese government, the current
> government of China owes this money under accepted and recognized
> international law. That law holds that an “… established and widely
> recognized government of a nation is liable under international law
> for the full faith and credit obligations of the established and
> widely recognized predecessor government of the same nation.”
>
> China has practically acknowledged and accepted responsibility for the
> debt. In the late 1980s it settled some of these bonds issued in Great
> Britain to regain access to British financial markets. In the late
> 1970s China settled American claims for property nationalized by it in
> 1949. Jonna Bianco at American Bondholders Foundation reports that
> China has insisted the current Iraqi government be responsible for
> Iraqi debt accrued under Saddam Hussein.'

I will certainly distinguish between bonds owed by the government or
SOE and bonds owed by private citizens or corporations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/276...
>
> > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > Om Shanti

rst0wxyz

8/21/2011 9:33:00 PM

On Aug 21, 11:21 am, Demorising <demoris...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:30 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> According to the article:
>
> 'Despite being issued by a previous Chinese government, the current
> government of China owes this money under accepted and recognized
> international law. That law holds that an “… established and widely
> recognized government of a nation is liable under international law
> for the full faith and credit obligations of the established and
> widely recognized predecessor government of the same nation.”
-------------------------------------------------------------

The Qing Dynasty government was NOT the current PRC nation.
The Republic of China government was NOT the current PRC nation.

>
> China has practically acknowledged and accepted responsibility
>for the debt.

No nation is stupid enough to accept someone else's debt unless forced
to by the power of the gun.

> In the late 1980s it settled some of these bonds issued in Great
> Britain to regain access to British financial markets.

No enough info to comment.

> In the late
> 1970s China settled American claims for property nationalized
>by it in 1949.

That was an act by the PRC, and rightfully settled by the PRC.

> Jonna Bianco at American Bondholders Foundation reports that
> China has insisted the current Iraqi government be responsible for
> Iraqi debt accrued under Saddam Hussein.'

Tell China to pursue Saddam Hussein for the payments.

>

comp.lang.ruby

YAML on Ruby 1.8.1 and Ruby 1.8.2

Dido Sevilla

Lionel Thiry

rst0wxyz

usenet

rst0wxyz

ltlee1

demorising

ltlee1

rst0wxyz

x Login to ForumsZone