[#24648] [Bug #1852] Enumerable's #hash Raises ArgumentError When Recursive Values are Present — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>
Bug #1852: Enumerable's #hash Raises ArgumentError When Recursive Values are Present
In article <4a73e51b5a4f9_138119f2a982704e@redmine.ruby-lang.org>,
> Is it valuable to implement such function?
In article <67e307490908010125r6fa76654pa8e2224f714588fc@mail.gmail.com>,
> * several real applications are found
In article <67e307490908012245x3bf3be81oc7f060c2569ad4ab@mail.gmail.com>,
>>> * several real applications are found
[#24650] [Bug #1853] Cannot make constants using upper-case extended characters? — Brian Candler <redmine@...>
Bug #1853: Cannot make constants using upper-case extended characters?
[#24666] request: include more headers/source in installations? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...>
Background:
[#24673] [Feature #1857] install *.h and *.inc — Roger Pack <redmine@...>
Feature #1857: install *.h and *.inc
Issue #1857 has been updated by Mark Moseley.
Issue #1857 has been updated by Jason Roelofs.
Hi,
Issue #1857 has been updated by Mark Moseley.
[#24675] Include Order — James Gray <james@...>
I was surprised to find that:
[#24747] [Bug #1881] [PATCH] Build Documentation for Kernel#gem and Gem — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>
Bug #1881: [PATCH] Build Documentation for Kernel#gem and Gem
[#24775] [Feature #1889] Teach Onigurma Unicode 5.0 Character Properties — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>
Feature #1889: Teach Onigurma Unicode 5.0 Character Properties
Issue #1889 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.
Hi,
> |First, we should decide supporting Unicode version.
[#24786] [Bug #1893] Recursive Enumerable#join is surprising — Jeremy Kemper <redmine@...>
Bug #1893: Recursive Enumerable#join is surprising
Issue #1893 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
[#24791] [Bug #1898] Method#== for Methods with the Same Body — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>
Bug #1898: Method#== for Methods with the Same Body
[#24793] [Feature #1900] Suggestion: Encoding#ascii_compatible? — Brian Candler <redmine@...>
Feature #1900: Suggestion: Encoding#ascii_compatible?
[#24824] 1.9 gem env is far slower than on 1.8? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...>
Currently when I run "gem env" on a windows machine
[#24854] embedding ruby 1.9 frustration — Rolando Abarca <funkaster@...>
Hello,
> I'm getting really frustrated, because there's almost no documentation
> Perhaps try using only rb_thread_blocking_region()?
[#24862] [Bug #1925] Division of negative numbers — Roswitha Rissner <redmine@...>
Bug #1925: Division of negative numbers
[#24885] IDEA: Shortcut syntax for binary strings? — Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@...>
Hey folks,
On Aug 12, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Gary Wright wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM, James Gray<james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
[#24921] regparse.c - patch to fix memory leak — Ralf Junker <ralfjunker@...>
There are several memory leaks in regparse.c. They all relate to incomplete pattern branches, where a branch node is not freed when branch parsing is aborted. I discovered this by successively shortening all patterns in my test suite (which is not in Ruby, nor in C, unfortunately) down to zero length.
[#24923] [Bug #1939] Ripper doesn't handle local variables — Magnus Holm <redmine@...>
Bug #1939: Ripper doesn't handle local variables
[#24927] [Bug #1940] Segmentation fault on TestFiber#test_many_fibers_with_threads (make check) — Luis Lavena <redmine@...>
Bug #1940: Segmentation fault on TestFiber#test_many_fibers_with_threads (make check)
[#24982] [Feature #1961] Kernel#__dir__ — Yutaka HARA <redmine@...>
Feature #1961: Kernel#__dir__
Wouldn't it be a little confusing to remember that __FILE__ is uppercase and
Hi,
Issue #1961 has been updated by Roger Pack.
On 23.03.10 19:10, Roger Pack wrote:
Perhaps __FILE__ should not be a raw String object, but rather a CurrentFile object. It could have a #to_str to return the normal String so it can be used like normal, but can provide methods like #dir, where __FILE__.dir == File.dirname(__FILE__).
This is nice but would not be backward compatible with code that
On 3/24/10, Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@headius.com> wrote:
Actually, I proposed that it be a String subclass, so it actually
[#24989] [Bug #1964] Compile Issue on Solaris 10 — Brian Toal <redmine@...>
Bug #1964: Compile Issue on Solaris 10
[#25010] [Bug #1972] Changing ENV['TZ'] of a running process should change behavior of Time — Shri Borde <redmine@...>
Bug #1972: Changing ENV['TZ'] of a running process should change behavior of Time
[#25025] [Backport #1975] Backport Dir.mktmpdir — Kirk Haines <redmine@...>
Backport #1975: Backport Dir.mktmpdir
In article <4a8e914c6160_2100affe60043c6@redmine.ruby-lang.org>,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Tanaka Akira<akr@fsij.org> wrote:
In article <f4cd26df0908240817s68a6835ie65d942bbd3b95be@mail.gmail.com>,
[#25027] [Bug #1978] fixed crash in lib/logger.rb from dependency on svn keywork expansion — Stephen Bannasch <redmine@...>
Bug #1978: fixed crash in lib/logger.rb from dependency on svn keywork expansion
[#25032] [Bug #1979] parser confused by local variable assignment — caleb clausen <redmine@...>
Bug #1979: parser confused by local variable assignment
[#25039] [Bug #1982] Kernel.load(..., true) --> scope problem — Johan Holmberg <redmine@...>
Bug #1982: Kernel.load(..., true) --> scope problem
[#25041] Proposal: Simpler block format — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>
I'd like to propose that we add the following syntax for procs in Ruby:
On Aug 22, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
Yehuda Katz wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Caleb Clausen <caleb@inforadical.net>wrote:
Yehuda Katz wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Caleb Clausen <caleb@inforadical.net>wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>wrote:
On Aug 23, 2009, at 15:58, Yehuda Katz wrote:
Hi --
Hi,
Hi,
Hi everyone,
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 4:53 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
[#25086] [Bug #1991] ruby should use twolevel namespace on OS X — Michal Suchanek <redmine@...>
Bug #1991: ruby should use twolevel namespace on OS X
Issue #1991 has been updated by Shyouhei Urabe.
Hi,
[#25131] [Feature #1999] Improved Tempfile — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>
Feature #1999: Improved Tempfile
[#25139] Patch writer's guide to submit — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Hi,
Reducing the submitters' frustration by reducing the delay for
[#25143] Is this an intentional change in 1.9? — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
This came up on the ruby lang forum.
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto<matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#25151] [Bug #2003] respond_to? not working 1.9.1p243 OSX — Adam Salter <redmine@...>
Bug #2003: respond_to? not working 1.9.1p243 OSX
[#25181] RegOOps: An Object-Oriented Approach to Pattern Matching — Run Paint Run Run <runrun@...>
Regexps in Ruby can feel like a jagged edge to the otherwise smooth
[#25191] [Feature #2012] Set event_flags on thread creation if hook exists — Mark Moseley <redmine@...>
Feature #2012: Set event_flags on thread creation if hook exists
[#25200] [Bug #2018] [irb] BasicObject.new doesn't have an inspect — Daniel Bovensiepen <redmine@...>
Bug #2018: [irb] BasicObject.new doesn't have an inspect
[#25208] Module#prepend and Array#prepend — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>
Matz,
Yehuda Katz wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Joel VanderWerf
Hi,
[#25210] [Feature #2022] Patch for ruby-1.8.6 and openssl-1.0 — Jeroen van Meeuwen <redmine@...>
Feature #2022: Patch for ruby-1.8.6 and openssl-1.0
[#25217] [Bug #2025] problem with pthread handling on non NPTL platform — Petr Salinger <redmine@...>
Bug #2025: problem with pthread handling on non NPTL platform
[#25220] [Bug #2026] String encodings are not supported by most of IO on Linux — Vit Ondruch <redmine@...>
Bug #2026: String encodings are not supported by most of IO on Linux
Issue #2026 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.
2009/9/1 Yui NARUSE <redmine@ruby-lang.org>:
[ruby-core:25064] Re: Proposal: Simpler block format
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 4:53 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>
>>
>> The compelling this for me is that it makes methods that take multiple
>> blocks easier for programmer to read. For programmer, one big confusion in
>> Ruby is difference between proc, block, lambda and method. Unifying syntax
>> for block and proc shows that they are really just same thing, with proc
>> passed as parameter and block passed as special parameter.
>>
>
> I have to admit that this strikes me as a solution in search of a
> problem, in that I've never had any trouble reading methods that take
> Proc objects as arguments. Also, I think that with the unification of
> block and method parameter semantics, things are getting a lot less
> confusing as to the differences among them.
I can just speak for myself: the fact that there were multiple different
"code block" syntaxes, each with their own semantics, has been a source of
historical pain for me.
> I don't consider a block to be the same thing as a proc, nor do I
> consider it a method argument. The block is part of the method-call
> syntax; in itself, it isn't an object (just as the argument list is
> not, in itself, an object).
There's no conceptual reason for programmers to differentiate between Proc
objects and the block passed to methods, except that the latter provides
some extra syntax to make the common use-case pretty. Trying to explain the
difference to new Rubyists strikes me as something we'd be better off never
having to do.
> Then whenever programmer sees { something } they know it is "proc" with
>> lexical scope, and whenever programmer sees ->{ something } they know it
>> is
>> "lambda" with function scope.
>>
>
> One danger of { something } being a proc is that it does away with the
> error message for odd-numbered hashes -- an edge case, admittedly, but
> still.
I don't think I've ever encountered this error except for Hash[*something],
which would not be affected by this change.
> I would even be in favor of def { } as lambda syntax, which would make
>> clear
>> to programmer that this block behaves just like normal method. Then we
>> have
>> just two things: def for method-scope (def something() end and def { })
>> and
>> bare { } for block scope.
>>
>
> Dave Thomas brought up the def { } thing at RubyConf 2005, I believe,
> and got a big round of applause :-) It's definitely way better than
> ->() (which I still sort of hope will disappear, though my hope is
> fading).
Then we agree :)
Don't you think that having just two "keywords" for code blocks (def/bare
{}) would simplify things conceptually?
>
>
>
> David
>
> --
> David A. Black / Ruby Power and Light, LLC / http://www.rubypal.com
> Q: What's the best way to get a really solid knowledge of Ruby?
> A: Come to our Ruby training in Edison, New Jersey, September 14-17!
> Instructors: David A. Black and Erik Kastner
> More info and registration: http://rubyurl.com/vmzN
>
>
--
Yehuda Katz
Developer | Engine Yard
(ph) 718.877.1325