[#29270] Proposal: Module#thunk_method — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>

Many people use define_method solely so they can define a new method

13 messages 2010/04/06

[#29293] URI.(un)escape deprecated? — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@...>

Hi.

16 messages 2010/04/07
[#29366] Re: URI.(un)escape deprecated? — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2010/04/08

2010/4/7 Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@marc-andre.ca>:

[#29313] [Bug #3112] require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default — Usaku NAKAMURA <redmine@...>

Bug #3112: require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default

28 messages 2010/04/08
[#29315] [Bug #3112] require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...> 2010/04/08

Issue #3112 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.

[#29336] Re: [Bug #3112] require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2010/04/08

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:06:55PM +0900, Yui NARUSE wrote:

[#29395] [Bug #3119] [Patch] "IOError (closed stream)" error with tempfile unlink then close usage — Simon Nicholls <redmine@...>

Bug #3119: [Patch] "IOError (closed stream)" error with tempfile unlink then close usage

9 messages 2010/04/09

[#29427] [Bug #3124] SocketError on SnowLeopard (during make test-all) — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Bug #3124: SocketError on SnowLeopard (during make test-all)

10 messages 2010/04/11

[#29462] [Feature #3131] add Kernel#Hash() method like Kernel#Array() — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #3131: add Kernel#Hash() method like Kernel#Array()

10 messages 2010/04/11

[#29464] [Bug #3132] …/nokogiri-1.4.1/ext/nokogiri/nokogiri.bundle: [BUG] Bus Error — Ashley Williams <redmine@...>

Bug #3132: …/nokogiri-1.4.1/ext/nokogiri/nokogiri.bundle: [BUG] Bus Error

8 messages 2010/04/12

[#29486] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Bug #3140: gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9

102 messages 2010/04/13
[#31002] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...> 2010/07/02

Issue #3140 has been updated by Aaron Patterson.

[#31003] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/07/02

Hi,

[#31005] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...> 2010/07/02

We are about to ship a version of Ruby with a built in package manager with

[#29489] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2010/04/13

After a brief discussion with Eric Hodel about this, there are a few questions before we can figure out how to solve this:

[#29513] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2010/04/14

Is there any comment on this? This is a big bug in 1.9.2 that we'd like to get fixed as soon as we can, but I need some input on it.

[#29526] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Rich Kilmer <rich.kilmer@...> 2010/04/15

I wrote this original code in gem_prelude.

[#31104] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yusuke Endoh <redmine@...> 2010/07/07

Issue #3140 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.

[#31108] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...> 2010/07/07

> I've commited the patch to trunk.

[#31193] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/07/11

Hi,

[#31223] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...> 2010/07/12

> Roger, could you re-try to build from scratch? ould you apply

[#31215] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yehuda Katz <redmine@...> 2010/07/12

Issue #3140 has been updated by Yehuda Katz.

[#31218] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/07/12

Hi,

[#29528] [Bug #3150] net/https peer verification doesn't do anything — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #3150: net/https peer verification doesn't do anything

11 messages 2010/04/15

[#29578] [Bug #3163] SyntaxError when using variable which is also a method in current scope with a Symbol argument — Benoit Daloze <redmine@...>

Bug #3163: SyntaxError when using variable which is also a method in current scope with a Symbol argument

17 messages 2010/04/17
[#29583] [Bug #3163] SyntaxError when using variable which is also a method in current scope with a Symbol argument — caleb clausen <redmine@...> 2010/04/18

Issue #3163 has been updated by caleb clausen.

[#29641] [Feature #3176] Thread#priority= should actually do something — caleb clausen <redmine@...>

Feature #3176: Thread#priority= should actually do something

28 messages 2010/04/19

[#29710] [Bug #3185] File.expand_path repeats forward slashes at the beginning of the path — Brian Ford <redmine@...>

Bug #3185: File.expand_path repeats forward slashes at the beginning of the path

10 messages 2010/04/21

[#29835] [Bug #3212] ConditionVariable may become inconsistent for interrupted threads — Sylvain Joyeux <redmine@...>

Bug #3212: ConditionVariable may become inconsistent for interrupted threads

24 messages 2010/04/28

[#29868] [Bug:trunk] assert now passes non-boolean result — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>

Hi,

15 messages 2010/04/29

[ruby-core:29605] Re: [Feature #1408] 0.1.to_r not equal to (1/10)

From: Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@...>
Date: 2010-04-18 22:14:58 UTC
List: ruby-core #29605
Hi Matthias,

I hope my dissent will not sound too harsh.

Let's call the set of numbers that can be represented exactly by
floating numbers "S". S is dependant on  your representation, which
makes it very uninteresting, so let's assume we're dealing with IEEE
754 doubles.

Doing any mathematical operation on members of S does not usually
result in a real number member of S.

Moreover, most of S that are < 1 need a very long decimal
representation. Take the float number that approximates 1/10. Its
exact decimal representation is:

0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625

(You can verify this with 0.1.to_r * 10**56 )

Arguing that 0.1.to_r should be 3602879701896397/36028797018963968 is
the same as arguing that 0.1.to_s should outputs these 55 decimals. If
S was important, if most inputs were actual members of S, that is the
output we would need. But most inputs are not be members of S, and
most results of calculations will not be members of S either.

For these reasons, the set S is of little interest to anybody.

What *is* interesting is the set of real numbers. Floating numbers are
used to represent them *approximately*. To add to my voice, here are a
couple of excerpts from the first links that come up on google
(highlight mine):

"In computing, floating point describes a system for representing
numbers that would be too large or too small to be represented as
integers. Numbers are in general represented *approximately* to a
fixed number of significant digits and scaled using an exponent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point

"Squeezing infinitely many real numbers into a finite number of bits
requires an *approximate* representation.... Therefore the result of a
floating-point calculation must often be rounded in order to fit back
into its finite representation. This rounding error is the
characteristic feature of floating-point computation."  source:
http://docs.sun.com/source/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html

Note that typing 0.1 in Ruby is a "calculation" which consists in
finding the member of S closest to 1/10.

Your final question was: how do I know that the value someone is
talking about is 0.1 and not
0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625 (or
equivalently 3602879701896397/36028797018963968) ?

I call it common sense.

Marc-Andr

In This Thread