[#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: Comparable module and values of <=> operator

From: David Flanagan <david@...>
Date: 2007-03-31 21:36:54 UTC
List: ruby-core #10827
Replying to my own post...

Let me add that the existing numeric <=> operators all do appear to 
strictly return -1, 0, or +1.  That is, they don't simply return y-x to 
compute a value less than, equal to, or greater than zero.  This would 
argue that the current documentation of Comparable is correct, but that 
the implementation is written so that it works even for broken <=> 
operators.

Anyway, I should say that it was probably presumptuous of me to assume 
that the documentation is incorrect.  Everything I've seen in writing 
says that <=> must return -1,0, or +1.  The implementation in compar.c 
makes it appear that this is not the case, however. I was not able to 
find any discussion of the return value of <=> in the ruby-talk archives...

	David



David Flanagan wrote:
> The rdoc for the Comparable module and its methods consistently indicate 
> that the <=> method must return values -1, 0, or +1. But the 
> implementation consistently tests for values < 0, == 0 and > 0.
> See compar.c in the source tree.
> 
> I believe that this is a documentation bug, and I will submit a patch if 
> folks here agree with me.  Shouldn't we be allowed to write our <=> 
> operators so that they return any Numeric value?
> 
>     David Flanagan
> 


In This Thread