[#37730] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4962][Open] come back gem_prelude! — Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>

24 messages 2011/07/02

[#37840] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4985][Open] Add %S[] support for making a list of symbols — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>

23 messages 2011/07/07

[#37866] [Backport87 - Feature #4996][Open] About 1.8.7 EOL — Shyouhei Urabe <shyouhei@...>

22 messages 2011/07/08

[#37913] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5003][Open] Enumerator#next segfaults in OS X Lion (10.7) — Ganesh Gunasegaran <ganesh.gunas@...>

16 messages 2011/07/09

[#37917] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5005][Open] Provide convenient access to original methods — Lazaridis Ilias <ilias@...>

13 messages 2011/07/09

[#37932] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5008][Open] Equal rights for Hash (like Array, String, Integer, Float) — Suraj Kurapati <sunaku@...>

31 messages 2011/07/09

[#37936] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5010][Open] Add Slop(-like) in stdlib and deprecate current OptionParser API — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>

29 messages 2011/07/09

[#37968] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5015][Open] method_added" is called in addition to "method_undefined — Lazaridis Ilias <ilias@...>

14 messages 2011/07/10

[#38096] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5033][Open] PATCH: 1.9: gc_mark_children: Avoid gc_mark() tail recursion, use goto again. — Kurt Stephens <ks.ruby@...>

14 messages 2011/07/16

[#38109] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5034][Open] C Source Code formatting — Lazaridis Ilias <ilias@...>

18 messages 2011/07/16

[#38171] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5047][Open] Segfault (most likely involving require) — Jack Christensen <jack@...>

21 messages 2011/07/18

[#38182] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5054][Open] Compress a sequence of ends — ANDO Yasushi ANDO <andyjpn@...>

68 messages 2011/07/19

[#38197] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5056][Open] About 1.9 EOL — Shyouhei Urabe <shyouhei@...>

39 messages 2011/07/19
[#38900] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5056] About 1.9 EOL — Shota Fukumori <sorah@...> 2011/08/10

[#38902] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5056] About 1.9 EOL — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/08/10

Hi,

[#39048] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5056] About 1.9 EOL — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2011/08/22

Hi,

[#39055] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5056] About 1.9 EOL — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...> 2011/08/23

On 23/08/11 at 06:50 +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:

[#38295] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5064][Open] HTTP user-agent class — Eric Hodel <[email protected]>

15 messages 2011/07/21

[#38391] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5076][Open] Mac OS X Lion Support — Yui NARUSE <naruse@...>

17 messages 2011/07/22

[#38503] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5096][Open] offer Logger-compatibility for ext — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>

16 messages 2011/07/25

[#38510] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5097][Assigned] Supported platforms of Ruby 1.9.3 — Yui NARUSE <naruse@...>

42 messages 2011/07/26

[#38526] [Backport92 - Backport #5099][Open] Backport r31875 load path performance problem — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>

19 messages 2011/07/26

[#38538] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5101][Open] allow optional timeout for TCPSocket.new — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>

15 messages 2011/07/27

[#38610] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5120][Open] String#split needs to be logical — Alexey Muranov <muranov@...>

18 messages 2011/07/30

[#38623] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5123][Open] Alias Hash 1.9 as OrderedHash — Alexey Muranov <muranov@...>

14 messages 2011/07/31

[ruby-core:38189] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5054] Compress a sequence of ends

From: Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...>
Date: 2011-07-19 11:59:53 UTC
List: ruby-core #38189
On 19 July 2011 13:27, Steve Klabnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Issue #5054 has been updated by Steve Klabnik.
>
>
> Yeah, I don't like this change. Mostly because that huge chain of ends is _supposed_ to look ugly; it reminds me that my code is far too nested, and should be reworked and written properly.
>
> I'd prefer bad code to look ugly.

I don't think eeend is beautiful at all. Even if you had to write "end
end" (on the same line) I'd prefer it.
If we want to go that direction (knowing all previous attempts failed,
and I think for a good reason), we should not stop halfway.

> These bad things won't occur by introducing en(n+)d.
They are many more problem invoked in the discussion.
Some can probably be solved in some way, other are real issues.

We have nice "unless" and you would go to the "eeeeeeend" ?
Sounds crazy to me ;)

In This Thread