[patch] Re: [BUG] Proc#arity regression or bug in RDoc

On 4/26/07, Mauricio Fernandez <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:55:46PM +0900, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
> > $ ruby19 -v -e "p proc{}.arity"
> > ruby 1.9.0 (2007-02-07 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]
> > 0
> > $ ./ruby19 -v -e "p proc{}.arity"
> > ruby 1.9.0 (2007-04-26 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]
> > -1
> >
> > However, the RDoc documentation attached to proc_arity still says that
> it
> > should return 0, so there's a bug, either in the code (wrong iseq->argc
> ?) or
> > in the docs (if the latter, the patch below should do).
>
> It seems it's a regression after all; no time to fix it now, but I've
> found
> when it happened:
>
> ruby-trunk-12116$ ./ruby -v -e "p proc{}.arity"
> ruby 1.9.0 (2007-03-21 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]
> 0
>
> ruby-trunk-12117$ ./ruby -v -e "p proc{}.arity"
> ruby 1.9.0 (2007-03-21 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]
> -1
>
>
This makes arity behave like the docs specify for both method.arity and
proc.arity.  I'm sure it's naive, but it seems to work.

-Adam

Index: proc.c
===================================================================
--- proc.c      (revision 12226)
+++ proc.c      (working copy)
@@ -434,11 +434,11 @@
     GetProcPtr(self, proc);
     iseq = proc->block.iseq;
     if (iseq && BUILTIN_TYPE(iseq) != T_NODE) {
-       if (iseq->arg_rest == 0 && iseq->arg_opts == 0) {
-           return INT2FIX(iseq->argc);
-       }
+       if( iseq->arg_rest < 0 ) {
+               return INT2FIX(iseq->argc);
+       }
        else {
-           return INT2FIX(-iseq->argc - 1);
+           return INT2FIX(-(iseq->argc + 1));
        }
     }
     else {