[#22684] [Bug #1247] YAML::load converts some dates into strings — Matthew Wilson <redmine@...>

Bug #1247: YAML::load converts some dates into strings

10 messages 2009/03/05

[#22725] [Bug #1253] Fix MSVC Build Issues — Charlie Savage <redmine@...>

Bug #1253: Fix MSVC Build Issues

13 messages 2009/03/07

[#22727] Moving ruby 1.9.1 forward on windows — Charlie Savage <cfis@...>

Hi everyone,

14 messages 2009/03/08

[#22731] [Bug #1255] += for large strings egrigiously slow — James Lee <redmine@...>

Bug #1255: += for large strings egrigiously slow

11 messages 2009/03/08

[#22736] Ruby 1.9.1 and tail recursion optimization — =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Wolfgang_N=E1dasi-Donner?= <ed.odanow@...>

Moin, moin!

13 messages 2009/03/08
[#22739] Re: Ruby 1.9.1 and tail recursion optimization — =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Wolfgang_N=E1dasi-Donner?= <ed.odanow@...> 2009/03/08

Wolfgang N疆asi-Donner schrieb:

[#22748] [Feature #1256] Add constant TAILRECURSION to let a program recognize if tail recursion optimization is implemented — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <redmine@...>

Feature #1256: Add constant TAILRECURSION to let a program recognize if tail recursion optimization is implemented

7 messages 2009/03/08

[#22803] Relegate 1.8.6 to Engine Yard, part II — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hello and sorry for my being slow for this issue. It's OK now for me to pass

21 messages 2009/03/10

[#22812] [Bug #1261] cross-compiling Ruby extensions using mkmf doesn't fully respect DESTDIR — Daniel Golle <redmine@...>

Bug #1261: cross-compiling Ruby extensions using mkmf doesn't fully respect DESTDIR

8 messages 2009/03/10

[#22892] Ruby Time — valodzka <valodzka@...>

Got tired of current ruby Time limitation, I have written this -

24 messages 2009/03/14
[#22949] Re: Ruby Time — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2009/03/19

In article <9e19ed87-9d12-4f98-af3c-bd49a71b0bd4@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

[#22974] Re: Ruby Time — valodzka <valodzka@...> 2009/03/20

[#22977] Re: Ruby Time — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2009/03/20

valodzka wrote:

[#22981] Re: Ruby Time — valodzka <valodzka@...> 2009/03/21

> I bet you'll get tired of updating that database. There's a major difference

[#22893] [Feature #1291] O_CLOEXEC flag missing for Kernel::open — David Martin <redmine@...>

Feature #1291: O_CLOEXEC flag missing for Kernel::open

10 messages 2009/03/15

[#22939] [Bug #1303] A name considered a local variable on RHS of an assignment that defines it — Tomas Matousek <redmine@...>

Bug #1303: A name considered a local variable on RHS of an assignment that defines it

8 messages 2009/03/19

[#23063] [Bug #1332] Reading file on Windows is 500x slower then with previous Ruby version — Damjan Rems <redmine@...>

Bug #1332: Reading file on Windows is 500x slower then with previous Ruby version

11 messages 2009/03/30

[#23075] [Bug #1336] Change in string representation of Floats — Brian Ford <redmine@...>

Bug #1336: Change in string representation of Floats

37 messages 2009/03/31
[#23179] [Bug #1336] Change in string representation of Floats — Roger Pack <redmine@...> 2009/04/11

Issue #1336 has been updated by Roger Pack.

[#23181] Re: [Bug #1336] Change in string representation of Floats — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/04/11

[#23186] Re: [Bug #1336] Change in string representation of Floats — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/04/12

Hi,

[#23187] Re: [Bug #1336] Change in string representation of Floats — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/04/13

[#23188] Re: [Bug #1336] Change in string representation of Floats — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/04/13

Hi,

[ruby-core:22635] Re: Question: lambda and yield

From: Jacob Fugal <lukfugl@...>
Date: 2009-03-03 04:46:52 UTC
List: ruby-core #22635
Take the following with a grain of salt; I'm not a core expert, I just
play one on TV. ;) If I'm wrong, just let me know. That said, I'm
pretty sure that...

Try the following code. You'll see that the puts after the yield isn't
even evaluated. The return statement within the lambda is "bound" (for
lack of a better word) to the method where the lambda was defined, not
the lambda itself. The statement is rebound to the Proc object when
the lambda is converted to a Proc, but remains bound to the caller
when yielded to.

Moral of the story: avoid return in lambdas and procs unless you
really want to explode a later code reader's brain. :)

Jacob Fugal

--
def call_block(&l)
  l.call
end

def yield_block
  yield
end

def lambda_and_call
  l = lambda { return 1 }
  x = call_block(&l) + 1
  puts "lambda_and_call: #{x}"
end

def lambda_and_yield
  l = lambda { return 1 }
  x = yield_block(&l) + 1
  puts "lambda_and_yield: #{x}"
end

lambda_and_call
lambda_and_yield

In This Thread