[#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:103638] [Ruby master Feature#16989] Sets: need ♥️
From:
grzegorz.jakubiak@...
Date:
2021-04-28 06:05:46 UTC
List:
ruby-core #103638
Issue #16989 has been updated by greggzst (Grzegorz Jakubiak). Is there a chance this feature lands in 3.1? ---------------------------------------- Feature #16989: Sets: need ♥️ https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16989#change-91734 * Author: marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) * Status: Assigned * Priority: Normal * Assignee: knu (Akinori MUSHA) ---------------------------------------- I am opening a series of feature requests on `Set`, all of them based on this usecase. The main usecase I have in mind is my recent experience with `RuboCop`. I noticed a big number of frozen arrays being used only to later call `include?` on them. This is `O(n)` instead of `O(1)`. Trying to convert them to `Set`s causes major compatibility issues, as well as very frustrating situations and some cases that would make them much less efficient. Because of these incompatibilities, `RuboCop` is in the process of using a custom class based on `Array` with optimized `include?` and `===`. `RuboCop` runs multiple checks on Ruby code. Those checks are called cops. `RuboCop` performance is (IMO) pretty bad and some cops currently are in `O(n^2)` where n is the size of the code being inspected. Even given these extremely inefficient cops, optimizing the 100+ such arrays (most of which are quite small btw) gave a 5% speed boost. RuboCop PRs for reference: https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop-ast/pull/29 https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/pull/8133 My experience tells me that there are many other opportunities to use `Set`s that are missed because `Set`s are not builtin, not known enough and have no shorthand notation. In this issue I'd like to concentrate the discussion on the following request: `Set`s should be core objects, in the same way that `Complex` were not and are now. Some of the upcoming feature requests would be easier (or only possible) to implement were `Set`s builtin. -- 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>