[#13842] Better introspection for Frames, Thread, and enhancing binding. — "Rocky Bernstein" <rocky.bernstein@...>

The below is a little long. So here's a summary.

11 messages 2007/12/01

[#13851] Array#flatten works quadratic time on length of resulting array. It could be linear — "Voroztsov Artem" <artem.voroztsov@...>

I encountered problem with Array#flatten slowness (it can be much

19 messages 2007/12/03
[#13863] Re: Array#flatten works quadratic time on length of resulting array. It could be linear — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/12/03

Voroztsov Artem wrote:

[#13867] Re: Array#flatten works quadratic time on length of resulting array. It could be linear — "Voroztsov Artem" <artem.voroztsov@...> 2007/12/03

2007/12/3, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com>:

[#13868] Re: Array#flatten works quadratic time on length of resulting array. It could be linear — "Voroztsov Artem" <artem.voroztsov@...> 2007/12/03

2007/12/3, Voroztsov Artem <artem.voroztsov@gmail.com>:

[#13870] Re: Array#flatten works quadratic time on length of resulting array. It could be linear — "Yusuke ENDOH" <mame@...> 2007/12/03

Hi,

[#13903] Clarification of retry change — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>

Matz confirmed that retry-outside-rescue will no longer work, but I

14 messages 2007/12/07
[#13905] Re: Clarification of retry change — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2007/12/07

Hi,

[#13908] What's the status of compiler/compiling on windows? — Gonzalo Garramu <ggarra@...>

20 messages 2007/12/07
[#13913] Re: What's the status of compiler/compiling on windows? — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/12/07

Hi,

[#13914] Re: [Spam] Re: What's the status of compiler/compiling on windows? — Gonzalo Garramu <ggarra@...> 2007/12/07

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#13926] Re: [Spam] Re: What's the status of compiler/compiling on windows? — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2007/12/07

T24gRGVjIDcsIDIwMDcgODoyMSBBTSwgR29uemFsbyBHYXJyYW11w7FvIDxnZ2FycmFAYWR2YW5j

[#14038] Re: [Spam] Re: What's the status of compiler/compiling on windows? — "Joe Swatosh" <joe.swatosh@...> 2007/12/12

Hi Luis

[#14039] Re: [Spam] Re: What's the status of compiler/compiling on windows? — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2007/12/12

On Dec 12, 2007 4:05 PM, Joe Swatosh <joe.swatosh@gmail.com> wrote:

[#14040] Re: [Spam] Re: What's the status of compiler/compiling on windows? — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...> 2007/12/12

> This was discussed in other thread in ruby-talk, but just to summarize:

[#13969] redefineable not operator — David Flanagan <david@...>

Matz,

37 messages 2007/12/10
[#13971] Re: redefineable not operator — murphy <murphy@...> 2007/12/10

David Flanagan wrote:

[#13972] Re: redefineable not operator — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/12/10

Hi,

[#14007] Re: redefineable not operator — murphy <murphy@...> 2007/12/11

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#14011] Re: redefineable not operator — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/12/11

Hi,

[#14013] Re: redefineable not operator — murphy <murphy@...> 2007/12/12

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#14016] Re: redefineable not operator — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/12/12

murphy wrote:

[#14019] Re: redefineable not operator — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/12/12

Hi,

[#14024] Re: redefineable not operator — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2007/12/12

[#14029] Re: redefineable not operator — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/12/12

[#14042] Fix e2mmap.rb for 1.9 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>

E2MM.Raise complains about $! being read-only now, and E2MM is used by

22 messages 2007/12/13
[#14043] Re: Fix e2mmap.rb for 1.9 — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/12/13

[#14049] RDoc + irb (Was: Fix e2mmap.rb for 1.9) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/12/13

On Dec 12, 2007, at 16:19 PM, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#14052] Re: RDoc + irb (Was: Fix e2mmap.rb for 1.9) — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/12/13

[#14056] Re: RDoc + irb (Was: Fix e2mmap.rb for 1.9) — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/12/13

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#14123] Some Ruby 1.9 loose ends to tie up — David Flanagan <david@...>

Matz,

20 messages 2007/12/17
[#14220] Re: Some Ruby 1.9 loose ends to tie up — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/12/21

Hi,

[#14238] Re: Some Ruby 1.9 loose ends to tie up — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/12/22

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#14147] named captures assigning to local variables — David Flanagan <david@...>

I've just been browsing ruby-dev. For an english speaker, it is kind of

26 messages 2007/12/19
[#14150] Re: named captures assigning to local variables — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2007/12/19

In article <47686B87.7050609@davidflanagan.com>,

[#14158] Re: named captures assigning to local variables — david@... 2007/12/19

Thank you for the clarification, akr. I'm embarassed to say that it didn't

[#14161] Re: named captures assigning to local variables — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/12/20

If I may, have a proposal. My apologies if this has already been

[#14170] Re: named captures assigning to local variables — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2007/12/20

In article <476A087E.3070000@davidflanagan.com>,

[#14172] Re: named captures assigning to local variables — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/12/20

How about making the return value an array of the captured strings, or nil

[#14149] Experimental PATCH to improve thread performance — Brent Roman <brent@...>

The attached patch against Ruby 1.8.6-p110 improves the performance of

38 messages 2007/12/19
[#14202] Re: Experimental PATCH to improve thread performance — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/12/21

Brent Roman wrote:

[#14257] Re: Experimental PATCH to improve thread performance — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2007/12/22

[#14266] Re: Experimental PATCH to improve thread performance — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/12/22

Brent Roman wrote:

[#14274] Re: Experimental PATCH to improve thread performance — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2007/12/22

On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 11:07:25PM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#14186] Rake 0.8.0 added to Ruby — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...>

Just a heads up here. I've added Rake (version 0.8.0 ... the latest)

34 messages 2007/12/21
[#14210] Re: [Spam] Rake 0.8.0 added to Ruby — Gonzalo Garramu <ggarra@...> 2007/12/21

Jim Weirich wrote:

[#14213] Re: [Spam] Rake 0.8.0 added to Ruby — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...> 2007/12/21

On Dec 21, 2007 10:24 AM, Gonzalo Garramu=F1o <ggarra@advancedsl.com.ar> wr=

[#14215] Re: [Spam] Rake 0.8.0 added to Ruby — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2007/12/21

[#14303] IRHG - GC Memory Fragmentation? — Charles Thornton <ceo@...>

While working on Chapter 05 and referencing various works

23 messages 2007/12/23
[#14308] Re: IRHG - GC Memory Fragmentation? — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> 2007/12/23

[#14335] Many external symbols _without_ prefix in libruby object file — Tadashi Saito <shiba@...2.accsnet.ne.jp>

Hi all,

12 messages 2007/12/23

[#14364] RDoc: [FATAL] failed to allocate memory — Martin Duerst <duerst@...>

With revision 14590, I suddenly get an error when I do "make install"

13 messages 2007/12/24

[#14367] replace csv.rb with fastercsv.rb — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...>

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

15 messages 2007/12/24
[#14390] Re: replace csv.rb with fastercsv.rb — James Gray <james@...> 2007/12/24

On Dec 24, 2007, at 3:34 AM, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:

[#14418] Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0 — Richard Kilmer <rich@...>

Just re-built latest svn of 1.9.0 and base64.rb is removed. Its

51 messages 2007/12/25
[#14420] Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/12/25

On Dec 25, 2007, at 07:03 AM, Richard Kilmer wrote:

[#14427] Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0) — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...> 2007/12/25

Eric Hodel wrote:

[#14431] Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0) — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/12/25

[#14446] Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/12/26

On Dec 25, 2007, at 13:35 PM, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#14452] Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0) — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/12/26

[#14492] Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/12/27

On Dec 26, 2007, at 06:16 AM, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#14494] Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0) — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/12/27

[#14503] Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0) — Richard Kilmer <rich@...> 2007/12/27

[#14505] Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0) — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/12/27

Richard Kilmer wrote:

[#14429] Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0) — hemant <gethemant@...> 2007/12/25

On Dec 26, 2007 1:01 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:

[#14430] Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0) — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...> 2007/12/25

hemant wrote:

[#14517] Invalid use of mktime() in Ruby 1.8/1.9 results in incorrect Time objects — Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink@...>

Hello,

12 messages 2007/12/27

[#14549] multibyte strings & bucket-of-bytes efficiency under 1.9.0 — khaines@...

Like everyone else, I've been testing my stuff under 1.9.0. In general,

38 messages 2007/12/28
[#14560] Re: multibyte strings & bucket-of-bytes efficiency under 1.9.0 — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2007/12/28

[#14573] Re: multibyte strings & bucket-of-bytes efficiency under 1.9.0 — murphy <murphy@...> 2007/12/29

Brent Roman wrote:

[#14603] Re: multibyte strings & bucket-of-bytes efficiency under 1.9.0 — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2007/12/30

[#14617] Re: multibyte strings & bucket-of-bytes efficiency under 1.9.0 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2007/12/31

In article <14544702.post@talk.nabble.com>,

[#14568] Layout of includes in ruby 1.9 — Gonzalo Garramu <ggarra@...>

19 messages 2007/12/29
[#14576] Re: Layout of includes in ruby 1.9 — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...> 2007/12/29

On Dec 29, 2007 2:39 AM, Gonzalo Garramu=F1o <ggarra@advancedsl.com.ar> wro=

[#14569] Wide strings to ruby strings — Gonzalo Garramu <ggarra@...>

11 messages 2007/12/29

[#14602] RCR allow indexing last n items — "Michal Suchanek" <hramrach@...>

Hello

15 messages 2007/12/30
[#14609] Re: RCR allow indexing last n items — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/12/30

Hi --

[#14610] Re: RCR allow indexing last n items — "Michal Suchanek" <hramrach@...> 2007/12/30

On 30/12/2007, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#14616] Re: RCR allow indexing last n items — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/12/30

Hi --

[#14621] Module.new(&block) in Ruby 1.9 — murphy <murphy@...>

Hello!

21 messages 2007/12/31
[#14622] Re: Module.new(&block) in Ruby 1.9 — "Cheah Chu Yeow" <chuyeow@...> 2007/12/31

This looks like a related bug with passing block arguments to

[#14633] Re: Module.new(&block) in Ruby 1.9 — murphy <murphy@...> 2007/12/31

Cheah Chu Yeow wrote:

[#14716] Re: Module.new(&block) in Ruby 1.9 — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2008/01/03

Hi,

[#14726] Re: Module.new(&block) in Ruby 1.9 — ts <decoux@...> 2008/01/03

>>>>> "S" == SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> writes:

[#14728] Re: Module.new(&block) in Ruby 1.9 — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2008/01/03

Hi,

[#16093] Re: Module.new(&block) in Ruby 1.9 — "Jeremy Kemper" <jeremy@...> 2008/04/01

Hi,

RCR allow indexing last n items

From: "Michal Suchanek" <hramrach@...>
Date: 2007-12-30 00:33:35 UTC
List: ruby-core #14602
Hello

As  discussed in thread starting with ruby-talk # 284001 there is an
inconsistency in handling positive and negative range indexes to
arrays and strings.

Currently the requirement is that the first number in the range does
fall into the string.

This allows "asd'[0...10] to return the first (at most) 10 characters
of the string.

However, the same cannot be done on the end:

"asd"[-10..-1] returns nil even though this could mean the last (at
most) 10 characters as direct opposite of the above. However, the
first number (-10) yields an index length-10 = -7 which is outside of
the string.

To make it possible to index the end of the string as easily as the
beginning the rules for indexing should be changed slightly.

currently they can be described as follows:

1) convert any negative indexes by substracting the value of the index
from length
2) if the first index does not fall into 0...length return nil
3) if the second index is >= length change it to (length - 1)
4) if first index >= second return "" (or [])
5) return the slice first..second

To provide for indexing of the end

0) note if both indexes are positive pos = (first >= 0) && (second >= 0)
or both negative neg = (first < 0) && (last < 0)
1) (as above) convert any negative indexes by substracting them from length
first = length - first if first < 0
2) return nil if both indexes were positive and the first index does
not fall into 0...length or both indexes were negative and the second
index does not fall into 0...length

return nil if pos && ! (0..length).include? first
return nil if neg && ! (0..length).include? second

Now the indexes either specify an empty string ( first >= second ), or
they were both the same sign, and we just ensured that they specify a
part of the string, or they were different sign so they must specify a
part of the string because they count from both ends towards each
other.

3) adjust any indexes that reach too far
first = 0 if first < 0
second = length - 1 if second >= length

4-5 as above.


I would submit this to rcrchive but for some reason I cannot sign up for it.

Thanks

Michal

In This Thread

Prev Next