[#10467] Module re-inclusion in 1.9 vs 1.8 — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>
Some months ago I noticed that the semantics of module inclusion had
[#10468] Floats that are NaN have strange behavior — Jonas Kongslund <jonas@...>
Hi
[#10478] Plan to add ext/digest/lib/digest/hmac.rb to 1.8.6 or 1.8.7? — "Zev Blut" <rubyzbibd@...>
Hello,
[#10480] Ruby 1.8.6 delayed for seven days — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
I am afraid I have to announce that Ruby 1.8.6 final release will be
[#10490] Join with block — "Farrel Lifson" <farrel.lifson@...>
This patch adds the ability to give the Array#join method a block like so
[#10492] Ruby 1.8.6 preview3 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Hi,
Akinori MUSHA wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Akinori MUSHA wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 04:16, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 10:46, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 12:07, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Eric Hodel wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
Hi,
[#10494] make check for 1.8.6-preview3: TestDBM: DBMError: dbm_store failed — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #9031, was opened at 2007-03-04 12:57
[#10507] Dynamic Array#join with block — <noreply@...>
Patches item #9055, was opened at 2007-03-05 19:57
Hi,
On 06/03/07, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
On 06/03/07, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 09/03/07, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#10536] DRb freezes YARV? — "Meinrad Recheis" <meinrad.recheis@...>
dear all,
[#10552] ruby 1.8.5p12: default IO object for gets() ? — Unknown <borg@...3.net>
Hello..
[#10563] Ruby 1.8.6 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Hello,
[#10575] 'rescue' with non-exception class — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
I was just caught out by this odd behaviour: a 'rescue' clause doesn't
[#10580] Kernel#exec on OSX — "Kent Sibilev" <ksruby@...>
Does anyone know how to explain this:
[#10585] Bugfix: Extension Compile Error with 1.8.6 — Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@...>
Hello,
[#10594] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org>
In ext/thread/thread.c, remove_one leaves the list in an inconsistent state.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:15:57 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
> > The fix is in thread-mutex-remove_one.diff.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:04 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 17:29, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:48:42 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
Here the next one (hopefully the last)
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:11:41 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:07:30 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
At Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:18:19 +0900,
> Which set of patches do you think should be committed? The former to
[#10615] Multiton in standard library — TRANS <transfire@...>
Hi--
On 3/15/07, Tom Pollard <tomp@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:46 PM, TRANS wrote:
On 3/16/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
[#10646] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #9376, was opened at 2007-03-19 15:58
noreply@rubyforge.org wrote:
On Monday 19 March 2007 18:01, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
Hi,
On 3/19/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
> |But what if that singleton class just contained a method that allowed
Hi,
[#10701] Discrepancy between GetoptLong.new and documentation — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #8384, was opened at 2007-02-02 10:06
> -----Original Message-----
[#10705] Google Summer of Code proposal. — "Pedro Del Gallego" <pedro.delgallego@...>
Hi,
On 3/21/07, Pedro Del Gallego <pedro.delgallego@gmail.com> wrote:
[#10711] Re: Extensions to ipaddr.rb — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
> Is this your intention?
[#10712] Ruby Method Signatures (was Re: Multiton in standard library) — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>
On 3/19/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/19/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/21/07, Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> wrote:
On 3/21/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 10:26:38PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
On 3/22/07, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote:
On 3/23/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
[#10729] BUGS in metaclasses inheritance — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #9462, was opened at 22/03/2007 11:19
noreply@rubyforge.org wrote:
[#10746] sub-process with Test::Unit does not exit error code as expected — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #9300, was opened at 2007-03-15 03:35
Hi,
[#10749] class_extension — TRANS <transfire@...>
I'm just following up to find out the status of consideration for
[#10768] Lastest Version IRHG - Technical Review Requested — Charles Thornton <ceo@...>
TO: CORE
[#10798] Virtual classes and 'real' classes -- why? — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>
I was wondering if someone could help me understand why there's a parallel =
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:44:16 +0900, "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:
Thanks for sharing the eigenclass hack.
John Lam (CLR) wrote:
[#10818] Bug in Net::HTTP#keep_alive? — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>
Sometimes Apache will send a connection header like this:
Should I submit a bug for this? I guess I'm not sure what proper
[#10826] Comparable module and values of <=> operator — David Flanagan <david@...>
The rdoc for the Comparable module and its methods consistently indicate
Replying to my own post...
I think there's nothing wrong with the implementation and documentation.
Is there interest in this? : get object from its object-specific class?
The following is the culmination of a discussion on ruby-talk from a
few days ago.
Someone asked if there was a way to find the instance of a singleton
class if you only had the class. After positing a solution using
ObjectSpace.each_object, I then wrote a small extension to get it via
the hidden __attached__ instance variable.
I was then asked to submit it to ruby-core, although I'm not sure
whether it's a problem which needs to be addressed in the core.
But just in case here's the discussion. If there's interest, I could
come up with a patch for 1.8.5, 1.8.6, and maybe 1.9.
On 3/13/07, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 13, 1:56 pm, "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/13/07, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Two approaches with a benchmark.
> >
> > And as I surmised, there's a really quick way to do this with a
> > relatively simple extension (at least for ruby1.8, I haven't looked at
> > this on 1.9).
> >
> > rick@frodo:/public/rubyscripts/getsinginst$ cat get_sing_inst.c
> > #include "ruby.h"
> >
> > static VALUE singleton_instance(VALUE obj)
> > {
> > if (BUILTIN_TYPE(obj) == T_CLASS && FL_TEST(obj, FL_SINGLETON)) {
> > return rb_iv_get(obj, "__attached__");
> > }
> > rb_raise(rb_eTypeError, "not a singleton class");
> >
> > }
> >
> > void Init_get_sing_inst()
> > {
> > rb_define_method(rb_cClass, "singleton_instance", singleton_instance, 0);
> >
> > }
> >
> > rick@frodo:/public/rubyscripts/getsinginst$ cat gsi.rb
> > require 'get_sing_inst'
> >
> > h = {:a => 1}
> > sc = class << h
> > def foo
> > end
> >
> > self
> > end
> >
> > p sc.singleton_instance
> > p sc.singleton_instance.object_id == h.object_id
> >
> > def instance_of_singleton_class_1(sc)
> > ObjectSpace.each_object(sc) do |obj|
> > return obj
> > end
> > end
> >
> > def instance_of_singleton_class_2(sc)
> > obj = nil
> > sc.class_eval do
> > if instance_methods(false).include?("singleton_method_added")
> > org = instance_method("singleton_method_added")
> > remove_method("singleton_method_added")
> > end
> > define_method("singleton_method_added") do |m|
> > obj = self
> > end
> > remove_method("singleton_method_added")
> > define_method("singleton_method_added", org) if org
> > end
> > obj
> > end
> >
> > require "benchmark"
> >
> > Benchmark.bmbm do |bm|
> > bm.report "ObjectSpace" do
> > 10000.times do instance_of_singleton_class_1(sc) end
> > end
> > bm.report "singleton_method_added" do
> > 10000.times do instance_of_singleton_class_2(sc) end
> > end
> > bm.report "primitive" do
> > 10000.times do sc.singleton_instance end
> > end
> > end
> >
> > And now for the benchmark results, note that I'm doing 10 times as
> > many interations as Trans did, 10000 vs. 1000, the primitive is on the
> > order of two orders of magnitude faster than either of the other
> > approaches.
>
> Actually, you mean Pit. He did the benchmarks. This is definitely the
> way to do it right though. I would submit this to ruby-core mailing
> list and see how it takes over there.
>
> T.
>
>
>
--
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
IPMS/USA Region 12 Coordinator
http://ipmsr12.denhaven2.com/
Visit the Project Mercury Wiki Site
http://www.mercuryspacecraft.com/