[#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: Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
Date: 2007-06-05 21:59:24 UTC
List: ruby-core #11416
Hi,

At Wed, 6 Jun 2007 03:48:02 +0900,
David Flanagan wrote in [ruby-core:11408]:
> > A proc is more than just its body.
> 
> I understand.  My point is that the Proc.== documentation says:
> 
>       Return +true+ if _prc_ is the same object as _other_proc_, or if
>       they are both procs with the same body.
> 
> To me, this implies that you can use == to compare the body of two 
> separate proc objects.  I couldn't come up with any case where you could 
> actually do this.  Nobu pointed out that when two procs have empty 
> bodies, == works for comparing them, but so far, there are no other 
> cases in which the documentation matches the implementation.

It may be changed in 1.9, because a Proc doesn't behave as a
Binding right now.  Although I'm still not sure if this
difference is intentional, it may be possible to improve the
comparison.

-- 
Nobu Nakada

In This Thread

Prev Next