[#18121] [Ruby 1.8.7 - Bug #405] (Open) ssl.rb:31: [BUG] Bus Error — Anonymous <redmine@...>

Issue #405 has been reported by Anonymous.

14 messages 2008/08/04

[#18130] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>

> Seriously though... Array.first is a noun.

10 messages 2008/08/05

[#18319] NEW Command: absolute_path() -- — "C.E. Thornton" <admin@...>

Core,

14 messages 2008/08/16
[#18321] Re: NEW Command: absolute_path() -- — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/08/18

Hi,

[#18381] [Bug #496] DRb.start_service(nil) is very slow — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #496: DRb.start_service(nil) is very slow

11 messages 2008/08/25

[ruby-core:18137] Re: Enumerators that know about a block

From: "Shugo Maeda" <shugo@...>
Date: 2008-08-06 00:56:55 UTC
List: ruby-core #18137
Hi,

2008/8/1 David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com>:
> I'm remembering that at one point it was possible to do this:
>
>  array = [1,2,3]
>  func = lambda {|x| x * 10 }
>  e = array.enum_for(:map, &func)
>  e.next
>  => 10
>
> But now the result is 1, because &func is ignored.
>
> I'm (a) puzzled by this, since it seems to me that enumerators are
> much more useful if they can remember a block, and (b) wondering if
> there's some similar replacement technique that I haven't managed to
> figure out.

enum_for is designed to apply a block for the specified method
(Array#map in this case) by later Enumerator method calls, so it
simply ignores a given block.

You may need the lazy version of Enumerable#map that returns
Enumerator instead of Array.

  e = [1, 2, 3].lazy_map {|x| x * 10}
  p e.next #=> 10
  p e.next #=> 20

-- 
Shugo Maeda

In This Thread