Re: How to see the all keys of "RbConfig::CONFIG" ?

2013-02-11 Thread Intransition
This has been helpful to me: require 'rbconfig' require 'yaml' y RbConfig::CONFIG -- [email protected] | https://groups.google.com/d/forum/ruby-talk-google?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ruby-talk-google" grou

Re: The "ruby way" to do desktop applications?

2013-02-11 Thread Intransition
http://appjs.org/ -- [email protected] | https://groups.google.com/d/forum/ruby-talk-google?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ruby-talk-google" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an em

Re: RDoc in latest version

2013-02-11 Thread Kendall Gifford
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM, RKA wrote: > I noticed that the indentation of bullet points didn't seem to matter. > > Such that: > * Bullet point one > *Sub-bullet one > *Sub-bullet two > *Bullet two > *Sub-bullet one > > Didn't come out formatted correctly. All the sub bullets

Re: elegant way to determine if something is defined

2013-02-11 Thread Robert Klemme
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Carlo E. Prelz wrote: > Subject: Re: elegant way to determine if something is defined > Date: lun 11 feb 13 05:30:30 +0900 > > Quoting Robert Klemme ([email protected]): > >> > While I do not use unit tests (which constitute >> > more code,

Re: Ruby Equivalent to VB's "With"?

2013-02-11 Thread Robert Klemme
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Joel Pearson wrote: > Nice one Henry. As usual Ruby has more than one way to do everything :) IMHO #tap is only called for in these situations - The value to be tapped is the result of evaluating an expression (and not already stored in a variable) AND - It sh

Re: Why doesn't Ruby have a built in sandbox class?

2013-02-11 Thread Robert Klemme
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Ano Hito wrote: > Robert Klemme wrote in post #1096190: >> I am pretty sure it's too late to include such a fundamental >> architectural change into Ruby 2.0. That sounds more like a Ruby 3.0 >> thing. > Is ruby 2.0 getting close to release then? I honestly haven