[#44036] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6242][Open] Ruby should support lists — "shugo (Shugo Maeda)" <redmine@...>
20 messages
2012/04/01
[#44084] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6246][Open] 1.9.3-p125 intermittent segfault — "jshow (Jodi Showers)" <jodi@...>
22 messages
2012/04/02
[#44156] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6265][Open] Remove 'useless' 'concatenation' syntax — "rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)" <rr.rosas@...>
45 messages
2012/04/06
[#44207] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6265] Remove 'useless' 'concatenation' syntax
— "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <mame@...>
2012/04/09
[#44211] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6265] Remove 'useless' 'concatenation' syntax
— Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
2012/04/09
Hi,
[#44232] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6265] Remove 'useless' 'concatenation' syntax
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2012/04/09
(2012/04/09 14:19), Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#44163] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6266][Open] encoding related exception with recent integrated psych — "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>
10 messages
2012/04/06
[#44233] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6274][Open] Float addition incorrect — "swanboy (Michael Swan)" <swanyboy4@...>
3 messages
2012/04/09
[#44303] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6284][Open] Add composition for procs — "pabloh (Pablo Herrero)" <pablodherrero@...>
57 messages
2012/04/12
[#44329] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6287][Open] nested method should only be visible by nesting/enclosing method — "botp (bot pena)" <botpena@...>
4 messages
2012/04/13
[#44349] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Open] new queue / blocking queues — "tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)" <aaron@...>
10 messages
2012/04/13
[#44354] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Assigned] new queue / blocking queues
— "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <mame@...>
2012/04/14
[#44357] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Assigned] new queue / blocking queues
— Aaron Patterson <tenderlove@...>
2012/04/14
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:58:12AM +0900, mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote:
[#44384] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Assigned] new queue / blocking queues
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2012/04/16
Hi,
[#44391] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Assigned] new queue / blocking queues
— Aaron Patterson <tenderlove@...>
2012/04/16
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 06:25:59PM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:
[#44372] Possible merge error of code in Issue 4651 on to Ruby 1.9.3-p125? — "Blythe,Aaron" <ABLYTHE@...>
tl;dr I believe I have uncovered a merge error to ruby 1.9.3-p125 from Issue 4651. Please advise if this is the same issue, or if a separate issue needs to be logged. Details below.
3 messages
2012/04/16
[#44431] [Backport93 - Backport #6314][Open] Backport r35374 and r35375 — "drbrain (Eric Hodel)" <drbrain@...7.net>
4 messages
2012/04/18
[#44432] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6315][Open] handler to trace output of each line of code executed — "ankopainting (Anko Painting)" <anko.com+ruby@...>
9 messages
2012/04/18
[#44533] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341][Open] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join — "rudolf (r stu3)" <redmine@...>
24 messages
2012/04/22
[#44564] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— "kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI)" <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2012/04/23
[#44573] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
2012/04/24
Hello,
[#44577] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2012/04/24
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp> wrote:
[#44582] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
2012/04/24
Hello,
[#44596] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2012/04/24
(4/24/12 6:55 AM), Yusuke Endoh wrote:
[#44579] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— "naruse (Yui NARUSE)" <naruse@...>
2012/04/24
[#44581] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2012/04/24
> kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI) wrote:
[#44540] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6343][Open] Improved Fiber documentation — "andhapp (Anuj Dutta)" <anuj@...>
6 messages
2012/04/23
[#44612] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6354][Open] Remove escape (break/return/redo/next support) from class/module scope — "ko1 (Koichi Sasada)" <redmine@...>
8 messages
2012/04/25
[#44630] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6361][Open] Bitwise string operations — "MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)" <Martin.Bosslet@...>
31 messages
2012/04/26
[#44713] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6361] Bitwise string operations
— "MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)" <Martin.Bosslet@...>
2012/04/28
[#44731] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6361] Bitwise string operations
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2012/04/28
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM, MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)
[#44759] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6361] Bitwise string operations
— Joshua Ballanco <jballanc@...>
2012/04/29
On Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 8:52 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
[#44636] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6364][Open] Segmentation fault happend when running test_cptr.rb — "raylinn@... (ray linn)" <raylinn@...>
9 messages
2012/04/26
[#44667] possible YAML bug in ruby 1.9.3p125? — Young Hyun <youngh@...>
YAML in ruby 1.9.3p125 seems to have a bug reading in YAML from older Ruby versions. Specifically, YAML in 1.9.3p125 mis-parses text like "123_456" as a number (just as in Ruby) rather than as a string, which appears to be the correct behavior according to the YAML specification.
4 messages
2012/04/27
[#44686] [BUG] not a node 0x07 — ronald braswell <rpbraswell@...>
Running ruby 1.8.6 on Solaris 10.
7 messages
2012/04/27
[#44688] Re: [BUG] not a node 0x07
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2012/04/27
2012/4/28 ronald braswell <rpbraswell@gmail.com>:
[#44694] Re: [BUG] not a node 0x07
— ronald braswell <rpbraswell@...>
2012/04/27
I have heard reports of this on 1.9.x. Do you know if this problem has
[#44704] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6373][Open] public #self — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>
61 messages
2012/04/27
[#44735] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6373] public #self
— "matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)" <matz@...>
2012/04/28
[#59892] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6373] public #self
— ruby-core@...
2014/01/20
Issue #6373 has been updated by Marc-Andre Lafortune.
[#44743] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6375][Open] Python notation for literal Hash — "alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)" <redmine@...>
10 messages
2012/04/28
[#44748] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6376][Open] Feature lookup and checking if feature is loaded — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>
13 messages
2012/04/28
[#44832] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6376][Feedback] Feature lookup and checking if feature is loaded
— "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <mame@...>
2012/05/03
[#44835] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6376][Feedback] Feature lookup and checking if feature is loaded
— Nikolai Weibull <now@...>
2012/05/03
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:02 AM, mame (Yusuke Endoh) <mame@tsg.ne.jp> wrote:
[ruby-core:44496] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5761][Closed] Array#flatten(N) calls to_ary on the (N+1)-level objects
From:
"mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <mame@...>
Date:
2012-04-20 16:46:42 UTC
List:
ruby-core #44496
Issue #5761 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).
Status changed from Assigned to Closed
This is already fixed in ruby-1.9.3-p194.
--
Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp>
----------------------------------------
Bug #5761: Array#flatten(N) calls to_ary on the (N+1)-level objects
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/5761#change-26052
Author: jonleighton (Jon Leighton)
Status: Closed
Priority: Normal
Assignee: mame (Yusuke Endoh)
Category: core
Target version:
ruby -v: ruby 1.9.3p0 (2011-10-30 revision 33570) [x86_64-linux]
$ cat flatten.rb
class Foo
def respond_to?(name, include_private = true)
puts "respond_to?(#{name})"
super
end
def method_missing(name, *args)
puts "method_missing(#{name})"
super
end
end
puts "[[Foo.new]].flatten(1)"
p [[Foo.new]].flatten(1)
puts
puts "[[[Foo.new]]].flatten(2)"
p [[[Foo.new]]].flatten(2)
puts
puts "[[[Foo.new]]].flatten(1)"
p [[[Foo.new]]].flatten(1)
$ ruby flatten.rb
[[Foo.new]].flatten(1)
method_missing(to_ary)
respond_to?(to_ary)
[#<Foo:0x00000001ae41c8>]
[[[Foo.new]]].flatten(2)
method_missing(to_ary)
respond_to?(to_ary)
[#<Foo:0x00000001ae3d90>]
[[[Foo.new]]].flatten(1)
[[#<Foo:0x00000001ae3980>]]
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.9.3p0 (2011-10-30 revision 33570) [x86_64-linux]
Expected behaviour: no method calls are made on the (N+1)-level objects.
For what it's worth, this is the 1.8.7 output:
$ ruby flatten.rb
[[Foo.new]].flatten(1)
respond_to?(to_ary)
[#<Foo:0x7fef3ebb1888>]
[[[Foo.new]]].flatten(2)
respond_to?(to_ary)
[#<Foo:0x7fef3ebb16a8>]
[[[Foo.new]]].flatten(1)
[[#<Foo:0x7fef3ebb14f0>]]
--
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/