[#10193] String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...>

Hi,

41 messages 2007/02/05
[#10197] Re: String.ord — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/02/06

Hi,

[#10198] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10199] Re: String.ord — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/02/06

David Flanagan wrote:

[#10200] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#10208] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10213] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10215] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10216] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/07

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10288] Socket library should support abstract unix sockets — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8597, was opened at 2007-02-13 16:10

12 messages 2007/02/13

[#10321] File.basename fails on Windows root paths — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8676, was opened at 2007-02-15 10:09

11 messages 2007/02/15

[#10323] Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

Some of the Ruby code used by TextMate makes use of xmlrpc/

31 messages 2007/02/15
[#10324] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2007/02/15

> -----Original Message-----

[#10326] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/15

On Feb 15, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Berger, Daniel wrote:

[#10342] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

While I am complaining about xmlrpc, we have another issue. It's

[#10343] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — Alex Young <alex@...> 2007/02/16

James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#10344] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

On Feb 16, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Alex Young wrote:

is Array#pack supposed to truncate integers in 1.9?

From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2007-02-21 23:15:37 UTC
List: ruby-core #10393
Surely this is a bug, not a feature?

% ./ruby1.9.x -e 'p [0xffffffff].pack("i")'
"\377\377\377\377"
% ./ruby1.9.x -e 'p [0xffffffffff].pack("i")'
"\377\377\377\377"
% ./ruby1.9.x -e 'p [0xffffffffffff].pack("i")'
"\377\377\377\377"

I would expect every one of these to fail, 0xffffffff is outside the
range of numbers representable as a signed 32-bit integer, and none of
those transformations are reversible:

% ./ruby1.9.x -e 'p [0xffffffff].pack("i").unpack("i")'
[-1]
% ./ruby1.9.x -e 'p [0xffffffffff].pack("i").unpack("i")'
[-1]
% ./ruby1.9.x -e 'p [0xffffffffffff].pack("i").unpack("i")'
[-1]


The last two are a change in behaviour from ruby1.8.5:

ruby1.8.5 -e 'p [0xffffffffff].pack("i")'
-e:1:in `pack': bignum too big to convert into `unsigned long'
(RangeError)


This seems a misfeature to me that seems likely to cause hard to track
down bugs.

Cheers,
Sam

% ruby1.8.5 --version
ruby 1.8.5 (2007-02-14 patchlevel 20) [i686-linux]
% ./ruby1.9.x --version
ruby 1.9.0 (2007-02-21 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]



In This Thread

Prev Next