[#11439] comments needed for Random class — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

15 messages 2007/06/12

[#11450] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — David Flanagan <david@...>

This is a late response to the very long thread that started back in

17 messages 2007/06/13

[#11482] Ruby Changes Its Mind About Non-Word Characters — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

Does this look like a bug to anyone else?

10 messages 2007/06/16

[#11505] Question about the patchlevel release cycle — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org>

1.8.6 thread support was broken in bad ways. It stayed for three months

20 messages 2007/06/20
[#11512] Re: Question about the patchlevel release cycle — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2007/06/20

Hi, I'm the 1.8.6 branch manager.

[#11543] Re: Apple reportedly to ship with ruby 1.8.6-p36 unless informed what to patch — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:47 PM, Bill Kelly wrote:

10 messages 2007/06/27

Re: Proc.==

From: David Flanagan <david@...>
Date: 2007-06-05 05:57:47 UTC
List: ruby-core #11403
Okay, anything other than the degenerate case of a proc with no body?

proc{0} != proc{0}
proc{nil} != proc{nil}

I still contend that the documentation gives the mistaken impression 
that == can be used to compare the source code of the bodies of two procs.

	David

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> At Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:37:08 +0900,
> David Flanagan wrote in [ruby-core:11401]:
>> Can anyone construct two proc objects p1 and p2, without using clone or 
>> dup, so that p1==p2 but p1.object_id != p2.object_id?
> 
>   p proc{} == proc{}
> 
>> Based on this, I would think that:
>>
>>    lambda {|x| x*x } == lambda {|x| x*x }
>>
>> But this expression return false in both ruby 1.8 and 1.9.
> 
> Procs have each own contexts.
> 


In This Thread