[#100284] [Ruby master Bug#17211] Test failures in ruby2.7.2 and ruby3.0~preview1 — utkarsh@...

Issue #17211 has been reported by utkarsh (Utkarsh Gupta).

10 messages 2020/10/02

[#100301] [Ruby master Feature#17215] Backport for arm64 optimizations that exist for power/x86 — jaruga@...

Issue #17215 has been reported by jaruga (Jun Aruga).

10 messages 2020/10/05

[#100329] [Ruby master Bug#17220] Rails Active Job integration test fails with Ruby 3.0.0 since 2038cc6cab6ceeffef3ec3a765c70ae684f829ed — yasuo.honda@...

Issue #17220 has been reported by yahonda (Yasuo Honda).

28 messages 2020/10/07

[#100332] [Ruby master Bug#17221] Relax the Fiber#transfer's limitation — ko1@...

Issue #17221 has been reported by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).

15 messages 2020/10/07

[#100348] [Ruby master Bug#17257] Integer#pow(0, 1) returns 1, which is incorrect — universato@...

Issue #17257 has been reported by universato (Yoshimine Sato).

13 messages 2020/10/09

[#100371] [Ruby master Feature#17260] Promote pattern matching to official feature — kazuki@...

Issue #17260 has been reported by ktsj (Kazuki Tsujimoto).

10 messages 2020/10/11

[#100383] [Ruby master Feature#17261] Software transactional memory (STM) for Threads and Ractors — ko1@...

Issue #17261 has been reported by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).

14 messages 2020/10/12

[#100401] [Ruby master Bug#17263] Fiber context switch degrades with number of fibers, limit on number of fibers — ciconia@...

Issue #17263 has been reported by ciconia (Sharon Rosner).

14 messages 2020/10/15

[#100422] [CommonRuby Feature#17265] Add `Bool` module — marcandre-ruby-core@...

Issue #17265 has been reported by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune).

11 messages 2020/10/19

[#100466] [Ruby master Feature#17273] shareable_constant_value pragma — ko1@...

Issue #17273 has been reported by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).

14 messages 2020/10/21

[#100471] [Ruby master Feature#17277] Make Enumerator#with_index yield row and col indices for Matrix — grzegorz.jakubiak@...

Issue #17277 has been reported by greggzst (Grzegorz Jakubiak).

8 messages 2020/10/21

[#100479] [Ruby master Feature#17278] On-demand sharing of constants for Ractor — daniel@...42.com

Issue #17278 has been reported by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme).

13 messages 2020/10/21

[#100534] [Ruby master Feature#17284] Shareable Proc — ko1@...

Issue #17284 has been reported by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).

16 messages 2020/10/25

[#100597] [Ruby master Feature#17288] Optimize __send__ call with a literal method name — muraken@...

Issue #17288 has been reported by mrkn (Kenta Murata).

13 messages 2020/10/27

[#100669] [Ruby master Feature#17295] Feature: Create a directory and file with Pathname#touch — get.codetriage@...

Issue #17295 has been reported by schneems (Richard Schneeman).

9 messages 2020/10/30

[#100673] [Ruby master Feature#17298] Ractor's basket communication APIs — ko1@...

Issue #17298 has been reported by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).

15 messages 2020/10/30

[#100675] [Ruby master Misc#17299] DevelopersMeeting20201120Japan — mame@...

Issue #17299 has been reported by mame (Yusuke Endoh).

11 messages 2020/10/31

[ruby-core:100374] [Ruby master Bug#17257] Integer#pow(0, 1) returns 1, which is incorrect

From: midnight_w@...
Date: 2020-10-11 13:18:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #100374
Issue #17257 has been updated by midnight (Sarun R).


The point of undefinition is:
There is nothing definitely right or wrong.
Neither 0 nor 1 is wrong; it is just a different point of view.

You are thinking that 0 ** 0 == 1 is useful because you are looking from the perspective of x ** 0 == 1 for most of x
while 0 ** x == 0 is also true for most of x too, and it is as useful as x ** 0 == 1.

Weather 0 ** 0 should return 0 or 1 is subjective, and whatever the actual implementation is, it is not entirely wrong, same for little-endian vs. big-endian.
This is the reason why the value is undefined.
Regardless of mathematical definitions, I second for `x.pow(y, 1)` should return 0, as I said initially, `% m` is the space and every value inside `% 1` space is 0.

Mathematical wise this is considered undefined behavior. Implementation wise there is an advantage that we follow other popular languages in this matter.

I just want to point out that people who oppose the behavior change has some merit.
Even if the current behavior sounds wildly wrong, most people are not going to care, because the value is mathematically undefined in the first place.
And no practical result will be obtained from `% 1` space.

Anyway, `x % 1 == 0` sound more "correct" to me too.

----------------------------------------
Bug #17257: Integer#pow(0, 1) returns 1, which is incorrect
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17257#change-87984

* Author: universato (Yoshimine Sato)
* Status: Assigned
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: mrkn (Kenta Murata)
* Backport: 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN, 2.7: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
Ruby 2.5.8, 2.6.6, 2.7.1


```ruby
p -1.pow(0, 1) #=> 1
p  0.pow(0, 1) #=> 1
p  1.pow(0, 1) #=> 1
p 1234567890.pow(0, 1) #=> 1
```

These return values should be 0.


Patch for test:

Let's add some boundary value tests to `test_pow` of [test_numeric.rb](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/e014e6bf6685f681998238ff005f6d161d43ce51/test/ruby/test_numeric.rb).

```ruby
integers = [-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 1234567890123456789]
integers.each do |i|
  assert_equal(0, i.pow(0, 1), '[Bug #17257]')
  assert_equal(1, i.pow(0, 2))
  assert_equal(1, i.pow(0, 3))
  assert_equal(1, i.pow(0, 6))
  assert_equal(1, i.pow(0, 1234567890123456789))
  
  assert_equal(0,  i.pow(0, -1))
  assert_equal(-1, i.pow(0, -2))
  assert_equal(-2, i.pow(0, -3))
  assert_equal(-5, i.pow(0, -6))
  assert_equal(-1234567890123456788, i.pow(0, -1234567890123456789))
end

assert_equal(0,  0.pow(2, 1))
assert_equal(0,  0.pow(3, 1))
assert_equal(0,  2.pow(3, 1))
assert_equal(0, -2.pow(3, 1))



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>

In This Thread