[#10492] Ruby 1.8.6 preview3 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>

Hi,

26 messages 2007/03/04
[#10500] Re: Ruby 1.8.6 preview3 has been released — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...> 2007/03/05

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Akinori MUSHA wrote:

[#10507] Dynamic Array#join with block — <noreply@...>

Patches item #9055, was opened at 2007-03-05 19:57

12 messages 2007/03/05
[#10520] Re: [ ruby-Patches-9055 ] Dynamic Array#join with block — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/03/06

Hi,

[#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.

15 messages 2007/03/14
[#10596] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/14

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:15:57 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:

[#10597] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2007/03/14

> > The fix is in thread-mutex-remove_one.diff.

[#10598] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/14

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:04 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:

[#10599] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2007/03/14

On Wednesday 14 March 2007 17:29, MenTaLguY wrote:

[#10600] Re: [PATCH] grave bug in 1.8.6's thread implementation — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/14

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:48:42 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:

[#10615] Multiton in standard library — TRANS <transfire@...>

Hi--

16 messages 2007/03/15
[#10619] Re: Multiton in standard library — Tom Pollard <tomp@...> 2007/03/16

[#10620] Re: Multiton in standard library — TRANS <transfire@...> 2007/03/16

On 3/15/07, Tom Pollard <tomp@earthlink.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

12 messages 2007/03/19
[#10647] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2007/03/19

noreply@rubyforge.org wrote:

[#10648] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2007/03/19

On Monday 19 March 2007 18:01, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

[#10651] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/03/19

Hi,

[#10665] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined — "Chris Carter" <cdcarter@...> 2007/03/20

On 3/19/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#10712] Ruby Method Signatures (was Re: Multiton in standard library) — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>

On 3/19/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

10 messages 2007/03/21
[#10715] Re: Ruby Method Signatures (was Re: Multiton in standard library) — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2007/03/22

On 3/19/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#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 =

12 messages 2007/03/28
[#10799] Re: Virtual classes and 'real' classes -- why? — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/03/28

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:44:16 +0900, "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:

Re: Virtual classes and 'real' classes -- why?

From: MenTaLguY <mental@...>
Date: 2007-03-29 05:09:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #10803
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 08:30 +0900, John Lam (CLR) wrote:
> More interestingly though, is where does the new method comes from
> when doing A.new. We believe that once we've looked at all of the
> ancestor classes' eigenclasses for new, that we then hit the Class and
> Module classes in the list of eigenclasses. Does that make sense as
> well? It's a bit strange because you start off looking through the
> eigenclass hierarchy for new, and then switch to the class hierarchy
> at the very end for Class, Module and Object.

I don't see it being particularly strange -- once we exhaust the
applicable eigenclasses, we start looking at the class hierarchy for the
class's _class_ (Class), just as we do for any other object.  The only
difference is that for class objects we consider more than just the
object's own eigenclass, including also the class's ancestors (not the
class's class's ancestors).

> Is this how things are actually implemented? (BTW I'm not lazy here -
> we cannot look for ourselves).

More or less.

> Also, as long as we respect this lookup mechanism, does anyone forsee
> any problems in merging the identities of the eigenclass and class
> objects into the same object (other folks who have code that
> explicitly depends on the behavior of the eigenclass hack -- not sure
> what this really means at this time though).

The class << self ; self ; end idiom is somewhat heavily employed in
Ruby metaprogramming, so I'd recommend against breaking it.

However, it doesn't really matter how you implement things, so long as
class << obj always gets you a context where self is an object which
behaves like the "virtual class" of obj.  There's no reason it couldn't
be e.g. some sort of lazily created proxy object rather than an actual
virtual class.  But I think always having explicit virtual classes will
give you a cleaner implementation.

Note that virtual classes also have their own virtual classes (ad
infinitum...); this works because Ruby creates virtual classes lazily,
deferring creation until the first singleton method is added to an
object.

-mental

Attachments (1)

signature.asc (189 Bytes, application/pgp-signature)

In This Thread