[#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:22709] Re: suggestions for float

From: Daniel Luz <dev@...>
Date: 2009-03-07 01:20:20 UTC
List: ruby-core #22709
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 20:52, Roger Pack <rogerdpack@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking that for now making the default string output be one s.t.
> some_float == eval("#{some_float}")
> would be good [and possibly retaining the 'human readable' through
> some other name, not even to be used with inspect, just something not
> existing].
> Thoughts?
> -=r

Again, what about something like Python's?

  >>> str(0.1)          # equivalent to Ruby's #to_s
  '0.1'
  >>> repr(0.1)         # equivalent to Ruby's #inspect
  '0.10000000000000001'
  >>> print 0.1         # print casts to string, just like Ruby's puts
  0.1
  >>> 0.1               # the interactive interpreter uses repr, like irb
  0.10000000000000001
  >>> 2.1 - 3.0
  -0.89999999999999991

Keeping #to_s behavior unchanged would break very little existing
code, and having #inspect return something that allows reconstructing
the same object is generally a very nice thing, IMO.

--
Daniel

In This Thread