[#103241] [Ruby master Bug#17777] 2.6.7 fails to build on macOS: implicit declaration of function 'rb_native_mutex_destroy' is invalid in C99 — eregontp@...
Issue #17777 has been reported by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
17 messages
2021/04/05
[#103305] [Ruby master Feature#17785] Allow named parameters to be keywords — marcandre-ruby-core@...
Issue #17785 has been reported by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune).
21 messages
2021/04/08
[#103342] [Ruby master Feature#17790] Have a way to clear a String without resetting its capacity — jean.boussier@...
Issue #17790 has been reported by byroot (Jean Boussier).
14 messages
2021/04/09
[#103388] [ANN] Multi-factor Authentication of bugs.ruby-lang.org — SHIBATA Hiroshi <hsbt@...>
Hello,
5 messages
2021/04/12
[#103414] Re: [ANN] Multi-factor Authentication of bugs.ruby-lang.org
— Martin J. Dürst <duerst@...>
2021/04/13
Is there a way to use this multi-factor authentication for (like me)
[#103547] List of CI sites to check — Martin J. Dürst <duerst@...>
Hello everybody,
4 messages
2021/04/22
[#103596] [Ruby master Feature#17830] Add Integer#previous and Integer#prev — rafasoaresms@...
Issue #17830 has been reported by rafasoares (Rafael Soares).
9 messages
2021/04/26
[ruby-core:103506] [Ruby master Feature#16945] Enable TCO by use of special form
From:
Ruby-Lang@...
Date:
2021-04-18 14:41:56 UTC
List:
ruby-core #103506
Issue #16945 has been updated by jwmittag (Jg W Mittag). x3qt (Yury Polyakov) wrote in #note-6: > shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) wrote in #note-4: > > Tell us how is it better than #12543, which is receiving negative feedbacks? > > ``` ruby > foo() then return > ``` > > Syntax proposed in #12543 does not look good to me, specifically because it is not a single word and using already existing constructions, so can be confusing because it is a special meaning. Adding a new reserved word is *extremely expensive* in the sense that it *massively* breaks backwards-compatibility. Every single piece of code everywhere in the world that every programmer has ever written that uses the identifier `recur` will be potentially broken by this change. The code you proposed is perfectly legal today, which means that introducing your proposed change will *change the meaning of existing code*. If you want to introduce a feature for adding new return semantics to methods you have to do it in a way which * does not introduce a new keyword or reserved word * does not change the meaning of existing code * ideally is currently not valid Ruby code ```ruby foo() then return ``` has the advantage that it only uses already existing reserved words and keywords and is currently illegal, so there *cannot possibly be* any existing code that gets broken. ---------------------------------------- Feature #16945: Enable TCO by use of special form https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16945#change-91604 * Author: x3qt (Yury Polyakov) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I would like to propose to create some way to enable TCO in ruby by use of special form, like (recur)[https://clojure.org/reference/special_forms#recur]. AFAIK TCO is not enabled by default because it messes with stack traces, so by implementing some special form we will avoid changing default behavior and provide opportunity to use it at the same time. Example: ``` ruby def fact(n, acc = 1) return acc if n <= 1 recur(n - 1, n * acc) # recursive call with TCO enabled end ``` -- 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>