[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Ruby stable branch is....1.9?

Daniel Berger

8/4/2006 12:47:00 AM

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
16 Answers

Yukihiro Matsumoto

8/4/2006 1:27:00 AM

0

Hi,

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.

Daniel Berger

8/4/2006 1:40:00 AM

0

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.

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/200... 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

Logan Capaldo

8/4/2006 1:44:00 AM

0


On Aug 3, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Daniel Berger wrote:

> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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/200... 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.

> Dan
>
>

Stefan Scholl

8/4/2006 6:45:00 AM

0

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.

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.


--
Web (en): http://www.no... -*- Web (de): http://www...

Yukihiro Matsumoto

8/4/2006 7:28:00 AM

0

Hi,

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.

matz.

Stefan Scholl

8/4/2006 12:17:00 PM

0

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.

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

--
Web (en): http://www.no... -*- Web (de): http://www...

Leslie Viljoen

8/4/2006 1:00:00 PM

0

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

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

8/4/2006 1:59:00 PM

0

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!

James Gray

8/4/2006 2:07:00 PM

0

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!

What do you do when you need both semantics in the same program?

James Edward Gray II

Yukihiro Matsumoto

8/4/2006 2:50:00 PM

0

Hi,

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.