[#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

20 messages 2009/08/01
[#24649] Re: [Bug #1852] Enumerable's #hash Raises ArgumentError When Recursive Values are Present — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2009/08/01

In article <4a73e51b5a4f9_138119f2a982704e@redmine.ruby-lang.org>,

[#24652] Re: [Bug #1852] Enumerable's #hash Raises ArgumentError When Recursive Values are Present — Run Paint Run Run <runrun@...> 2009/08/01

> Is it valuable to implement such function?

[#24682] Re: [Bug #1852] Enumerable's #hash Raises ArgumentError When Recursive Values are Present — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2009/08/02

In article <67e307490908010125r6fa76654pa8e2224f714588fc@mail.gmail.com>,

[#24673] [Feature #1857] install *.h and *.inc — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Feature #1857: install *.h and *.inc

21 messages 2009/08/01

[#24732] [Bug #1873] MatchData#[]: Omits All But Last Captures Corresponding to the Same Named Group — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1873: MatchData#[]: Omits All But Last Captures Corresponding to the Same Named Group

12 messages 2009/08/03

[#24775] [Feature #1889] Teach Onigurma Unicode 5.0 Character Properties — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Feature #1889: Teach Onigurma Unicode 5.0 Character Properties

30 messages 2009/08/05

[#24786] [Bug #1893] Recursive Enumerable#join is surprising — Jeremy Kemper <redmine@...>

Bug #1893: Recursive Enumerable#join is surprising

24 messages 2009/08/06
[#28422] [Bug #1893] Recursive Enumerable#join is surprising — Yusuke Endoh <redmine@...> 2010/03/02

Issue #1893 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.

[#28438] Re: [Bug #1893] Recursive Enumerable#join is surprising — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/03/03

Hi,

[#24854] embedding ruby 1.9 frustration — Rolando Abarca <funkaster@...>

Hello,

12 messages 2009/08/10

[#24982] [Feature #1961] Kernel#__dir__ — Yutaka HARA <redmine@...>

Feature #1961: Kernel#__dir__

26 messages 2009/08/19
[#28898] [Feature #1961] Kernel#__dir__ — Roger Pack <redmine@...> 2010/03/23

Issue #1961 has been updated by Roger Pack.

[#28900] Re: [Feature #1961] Kernel#__dir__ — Kornelius Kalnbach <murphy@...> 2010/03/23

On 23.03.10 19:10, Roger Pack wrote:

[#25025] [Backport #1975] Backport Dir.mktmpdir — Kirk Haines <redmine@...>

Backport #1975: Backport Dir.mktmpdir

12 messages 2009/08/21

[#25041] Proposal: Simpler block format — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>

I'd like to propose that we add the following syntax for procs in Ruby:

45 messages 2009/08/23
[#25046] Re: Proposal: Simpler block format — Caleb Clausen <caleb@...> 2009/08/23

Yehuda Katz wrote:

[#25049] Re: Proposal: Simpler block format — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...> 2009/08/23

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Caleb Clausen <caleb@inforadical.net>wrote:

[#25058] Re: Proposal: Simpler block format — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/08/23

Hi,

[#25059] Re: Proposal: Simpler block format — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...> 2009/08/23

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>wrote:

[#25063] Re: Proposal: Simpler block format — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2009/08/23

Hi --

[#25068] Re: Proposal: Simpler block format — brian ford <brixen@...> 2009/08/24

Hi,

[#25086] [Bug #1991] ruby should use twolevel namespace on OS X — Michal Suchanek <redmine@...>

Bug #1991: ruby should use twolevel namespace on OS X

12 messages 2009/08/24

[#25208] Module#prepend and Array#prepend — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>

Matz,

23 messages 2009/08/30

[#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

15 messages 2009/08/30

[#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

18 messages 2009/08/31

[ruby-core:25071] Re: Proposal: Simpler block format

From: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@...>
Date: 2009-08-24 04:34:33 UTC
List: ruby-core #25071
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:03 PM, brian ford<brixen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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 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).
>>
>>> 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 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).
>
> I am desperately hoping for a miracle, that ->() will be removed.
>
> Could we add def {} and see by usage which prevails? Or take a
> world-wide vote (perhaps weighted by number of lines of Ruby code
> written by the voter)?
>
> Alas, if ->() stays, we will at least have an easy pick for the
> ugliest bit of Ruby syntax.
>
> BTW, could someone share code that effectively uses something like:
>
> all_method -> { proc_1 },
> -> { proc_2 },
> -> { proc_3 }

It's nice for declarative style:

Sampler.new do
  sample 'Memory/Resident',
    available: -> { File.exist? "/proc/#{$$}/status" }
    measure: -> { $1.to_i if File.read("/proc/#{$$}/status") =~ /RSS:\s*(\d+)/ )

  sample 'Objects/Live',
    available: -> { ObjectSpace.respond_to? :live_objects },
    measure: -> { ObjectSpace.live_objects }
end

jeremy

In This Thread