[#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:22636] Re: Question: lambda and yield

From: Eugene Pimenov <libc@...>
Date: 2009-03-03 06:08:18 UTC
List: ruby-core #22636
03.03.2009, 7:46, Jacob Fugal 轢闊騾:

> 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.

Thank you for you reply.

This 澱oundpiece of puzzle is missing from my view. I quick-check  
ruby 1.8.6 code and there's no explicit 途ebounding it looks for the  
Proc object type in call method, and does not look in rb_yield  
(assumes everything is Proc.new). I just wanted to know this  
澱oundingis expected behavior  or not.


>
> 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

Prev Next