Ruby stable branch is....1.9?

[Daniel Berger]

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

 

[Yukihiro Matsumoto]

Hi,

In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?"

|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]

Hi,

In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?"

|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 server:[email protected]:/src login
cvs -z4 -d server:[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

 

[Logan Capaldo]

Hi,

In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?"
on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:50:05 +0900, "Daniel Berger"

|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 server:[email protected]:/src login
cvs -z4 -d server:[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,

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.

 

[Stefan Scholl]

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 Matsumoto]

Hi,

In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?"

|> 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]

In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?"

|> 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

 

[Leslie Viljoen]

.
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]

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 Edward Gray II]

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]

Hi,

In message "Re: Ruby stable branch is....1.9?"

|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.

 

[Daniel Berger]

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=20
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication =

in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and =
destroy=20
all copies of the communication and any attachments.

 

[znmeb]

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.

 

[Florian Frank]

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

Pragmas can have block scope in Perl:
{
use bytes;
# ...
}

 

[Eric Hodel]

I tried two different things. I did the CVS thing first:

cvs -d server:[email protected]:/src login
cvs -z4 -d server:[email protected]:/src co ruby

When that gave me 1.9 I removed it

You wanted:

cvs -z4 -d server:[email protected]:/src co -r ruby_1_8 ruby

 

[Daniel Berger]

You wanted:

cvs -z4 -d server:[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