[#23132] [Bug #1357] Fixing variables into specific CPU registers deemed overrated & may disturb compilers' optimizers — Ollivier Robert <redmine@...>
Bug #1357: Fixing variables into specific CPU registers deemed overrated & may disturb compilers' optimizers
[#23154] [Bug #1363] Wrong value for Hash of NaN — Heesob Park <redmine@...>
Bug #1363: Wrong value for Hash of NaN
Hi,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#23168] [Bug #1367] flatten(0) is not consistent with flatten(), flatten(1), etc. — Paul Lewis <redmine@...>
Bug #1367: flatten(0) is not consistent with flatten(), flatten(1), etc.
Issue #1367 has been updated by Paul Lewis.
[#23174] [Feature #1371] FTPS Implicit — Daniel Parker <redmine@...>
Feature #1371: FTPS Implicit
[#23193] Regexp Encoding — James Gray <james@...>
I'm trying to document the Encoding Regexp objects receive for the
[#23194] [Feature #1377] Please provide constant File::NOATIME — Johan Walles <redmine@...>
Feature #1377: Please provide constant File::NOATIME
[#23231] What do you think about changing the return value of Kernel#require and Kernel#load to the source encoding of the required file? — =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Wolfgang_N=E1dasi-Donner?= <ed.odanow@...>
Dear Ruby developers and users!
Wolfgang N叩dasi-Donner wrote:
Wolfgang N叩dasi-Donner wrote:
Michael Neumann schrieb:
[#23252] [Bug #1392] Object#extend leaks memory on Ruby 1.9.1 — Muhammad Ali <redmine@...>
Bug #1392: Object#extend leaks memory on Ruby 1.9.1
[#23267] StringIO: RubySpec violation — Hongli Lai <hongli@...99.net>
I ran RubySpec against the 1.8.6-p368 release. It seems that
[#23289] [Bug #1399] Segmentation fault is raised when you use a postgres gem — Marcel Keil <redmine@...>
Bug #1399: Segmentation fault is raised when you use a postgres gem
[#23297] Ruby Oniguruma question — Ralf Junker <ralfjunker@...>
I see that the Ruby source code contains modified and more recent version of the Oniguruma regular expression library.
[#23305] [Bug #1403] Process.daemon should do a double fork to avoid problems with controlling terminals — Gary Wright <redmine@...>
Bug #1403: Process.daemon should do a double fork to avoid problems with controlling terminals
Hi,
[#23311] [Bug #1404] Net::HTTP::Post failing when a post field contains ":" — Ignacio Martín <redmine@...>
Bug #1404: Net::HTTP::Post failing when a post field contains ":"
[#23318] [Feature #1408] 0.1.to_r not equal to (1/10) — Heesob Park <redmine@...>
Feature #1408: 0.1.to_r not equal to (1/10)
Issue #1408 has been updated by tadayoshi funaba.
Hi,
Hi.
Issue #1408 has been updated by Marc-Andre Lafortune.
Issue #1408 has been updated by Roger Pack.
[#23321] [Bug #1412] 1.8.7-p160 extmk.rb fails when cross compiling — Luis Lavena <redmine@...>
Bug #1412: 1.8.7-p160 extmk.rb fails when cross compiling
[ruby-core:23294] Re: [Feature #1400] Please add a method to enumerate fields in OpenStruct
On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Tomas Pospisek wrote: > Feature #1400: Please add a method to enumerate fields in OpenStruct > http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/1400 > > Author: Tomas Pospisek > Status: Open, Priority: Normal > > There are two ways to find out what fields an OpenStruct instance > has. One is through inspect, > however that returns a String that needs to be parsed. > > The second is by white box engineering, looking at OpenStructs > source code and seeing that in > fact, it has a hash and getting the keys of that hash... > > The second way is faster, more robust, but will break once > OpenStruct will be re-engineered... > > So I suggest to add an explicit method to return a list of fields in > an OpenStruct instance: > > --- ostruct.rb.old 2009-04-23 15:26:45.000000000 +0200 > +++ ostruct.rb 2009-04-23 15:32:41.000000000 +0200 > @@ -110,6 +110,15 @@ > @table.delete name.to_sym > end > > + # > + # Returns an Array containing the fields of an OpenStruct instance > + # > + # p record.fields # -> [:age, :pension, :name] > + # > + def fields > + @table.keys > + end > + > InspectKey = :__inspect_key__ # :nodoc: > > # I'm wondering if members() would be a better name, to match Struct's support of this feature. Either way, this change would remove a key for use. Perhaps a __members__() would be safer, for that reason. Anyway, I'm just thinking out load here. I support the change. James Edward Gray II