On 19 Dec 2005, at 22:10 , Jean-Christophe Michel wrote:
Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov a écrit :
What do you think? Please note that I am heavily biased because every
single piece of software I used since I was 12 had problems with
Russian letters, and Rails is no exception 10 years later, on a fully
I can second this interest - I've adapted Duanes patch for our
projects and it's a sound piece of code, I can't see any reason why it
shouldn't be a part of Rails proper.
On 12/18/05, Duane Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I talked with bitsweat about flexible fixtures at RubyConf but
I think Julik brought up a very important issue, and I wish it had
gotten more attention. Ruby's Unicode string handling is broken,
mostly because it doesn't count multibyte characters correctly.
Thijs Van Der Vossen wrote:
>If you _need_ a dynamic language with a true and tested Unicode
>String t
+1
I don't think I understand the hesitation.
obie
On 12/20/05, Joshua Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Julik brought up a very important issue, and I wish it had
> gotten more attention. Ruby's Unicode string handling is broken,
> mostly because it doesn't count multibyte characters
I didn't want to be the first reply, because I'm not part of core, and
my support doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.
That being said, I think the ability to 'fix this' at the framework
layer is one of the beautiful parts of Ruby, and we should just go
ahead and do it.
I'd be happy to
What is the reason for making fixtures more complicated?
I don't see the reason for needing more then one set of fixtures, you
could just add more fixtures if you need to test new things.
I think there is value in keeping fixtures straight forward; What you
want to do is to model a sensible "test"
On 20-dec-2005, at 9:04, Thijs Van Der Vossen wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005, at 22:10 , Jean-Christophe Michel wrote:
Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov a écrit :
What do you think? Please note that I am heavily biased because
every
single piece of software I used since I was 12 had problems with
Russian let
I'm not sure this is what Duane was suggesting - all his patch gives
is some optional control over which table and which class is used to
load a particular fixtures file...
- james
On 12/20/05, Tobias Luetke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the reason for making fixtures more complicated?
> I
On Dec 20, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Tobias Luetke wrote:
What is the reason for making fixtures more complicated?
I don't see the reason for needing more then one set of fixtures, you
could just add more fixtures if you need to test new things.
There are several reasons for needing this patch. One
On 20 Dec 2005, at 17:45 , Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov wrote:
On 20-dec-2005, at 9:04, Thijs Van Der Vossen wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005, at 22:10 , Jean-Christophe Michel wrote:
Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov a écrit :
What do you think? Please note that I am heavily biased because
every
single piece of so
Gurus (Guri? heh),
We got burned today by #2018 ("rake appdoc fails on Windows systems"),
and did a bunch of ferreting around (starting at the problems in
rdoc,rake,rdoc.bat) and ultimately came back to the conclusion that the
cleanest way to fix the problem is just a variation on a suggestion
alr
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:37:57AM -0600, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
> So apparently 1.8.4 is soon forthcoming. We need testing against it.
The major production Rails application I'm developing at work is running
just fine and passing all tests with Rails 1.0 gems and Ruby 1.8.4
preview 2 on
12 matches
Mail list logo
