Re: putting away HashWithIndifferentAccess

2007-09-26 Thread Jonas Pfenniger
2007/9/26, why the lucky stiff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hey, campineros. And many good handshakes to zimbatm for getting some patches applied. You're welcome ! Markaby's going to take much more work. Part of the issue is: how does an app tell Camping that it needs to use Markaby without

Re: putting away HashWithIndifferentAccess

2007-09-26 Thread Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov
On Sep 26, 2007, at 4:24 AM, Evan Weaver wrote: As far as I can tell, sym_tbl is just a regular st_table, so it's an expanding array similar to the Ruby heap. Oddly enough, this: c = 0 loop { c += 1; puts two_symbols_sitting_in_a_tree_#{c}.to_sym } was a total crasher on 1.8.5 but works on

Re: putting away HashWithIndifferentAccess

2007-09-26 Thread Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov
On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:35 AM, Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov wrote: class H (HashWithIndifferentAccess rescue Hash) To be clear, I'm really for the hash also because I use the obj = @items.delete paradigm to signify take this item out because we'll work with it). But you can optionally

Re: putting away HashWithIndifferentAccess

2007-09-26 Thread why the lucky stiff
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Jonas Pfenniger wrote: I suggest that H is a child of Hash. Extensions can extend it to provide method_missing goodness or anything else. The only concern I have is about case-sensitiveness. I am not sure if the http headers are normalized on input or

Re: putting away HashWithIndifferentAccess

2007-09-26 Thread Jonas Pfenniger
Minimal HWIA removal patch attached. So far, the examples, file upload, sessions, all work under mongrel with the patch applied. _why, is it something like that that you want ? I'm not even sure if HWIA extension is useful. The method_missing shortcut is even shorter than the one with :symbols.

WEBrick Re: Next camping release

2007-09-26 Thread Ernest Prabhakar
Hi all, I was looking at the test cases on the changeset: http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/camping/browser/trunk/test?rev=227 However, I didn't see anything about testing with different web browsers; which is a concern since there was a nasty WEBrick bug in the last version. Is there test