[#23457] [Bug #1471] "Mutual join" deadlock detection faulty in 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 — John Carter <redmine@...>

Bug #1471: "Mutual join" deadlock detection faulty in 1.8.6 and 1.8.7

17 messages 2009/05/15

[#23483] [Bug #1478] Ruby archive — Oleg Puchinin <redmine@...>

Bug #1478: Ruby archive

29 messages 2009/05/16
[#29225] [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Luis Lavena <redmine@...> 2010/04/02

Issue #1478 has been updated by Luis Lavena.

[#30345] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2010/05/21

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 17:13, Luis Lavena <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#30346] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Jonathan Nielsen <jonathan@...> 2010/05/21

> Thanks for your comment.

[#30347] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Jonathan Nielsen <jonathan@...> 2010/05/21

OK Hiroshi, I read some of the comments earlier in the thread that I

[#30355] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Caleb Clausen <vikkous@...> 2010/05/21

On 5/20/10, Jonathan Nielsen <jonathan@jmnet.us> wrote:

[#30364] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...> 2010/05/22

Hi,

[#23505] [Bug #1494] tempfile#unlink may silently fail on windows — Nicholas Manning <redmine@...>

Bug #1494: tempfile#unlink may silently fail on windows

19 messages 2009/05/19

[#23572] [Bug #1525] Deadlock in Ruby 1.9's VM caused by ConditionVariable.wait and fork? — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #1525: Deadlock in Ruby 1.9's VM caused by ConditionVariable.wait and fork?

27 messages 2009/05/27

[#23595] Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>

The RUBY_PLATFORM constant is documented in the latest Pickaxe as "The

17 messages 2009/05/28
[#23596] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wr=

[#23602] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:

[#23608] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wr=

[#23609] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...> 2009/05/29

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:

[ruby-core:23543] a feature for ruby: Kernel#in?

From: Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...>
Date: 2009-05-25 04:41:36 UTC
List: ruby-core #23543
Following a discussion on ruby-talk of a few ideas for ruby[1],
thought I'd suggest them (one at a time) to core.
Here's the first.

Add an Object#in? method to complement Enumerable#include?

Background: currently if you want to test for membership you have to
do it "backward" by using include? on the array.

ex:

if STUFF.include?(a)
 puts 'yes'
else
 puts 'no'
end

Clearer to the reader (at least to my eyes) would be

if a.in?(STUFF)
 puts 'yes'
else
 puts 'no'
end

proposed definition (from [3])

module Kernel
  # Is self included in other?
  #
  #   5.in?(0..10)       #=> true
  #   5.in?([0,1,2,3])   #=> false
  #
  def in?(other)
    other.include?(self)
  end

end

currently several developers said they use this idiom already [1,2,3],
facets has it, and I have found it quite useful in the past, therefore
propose its incorporation into core.

drawbacks: existing 'in?' methods would become ambiguous--I'd imagine
this is rare so hopefully a limited impact.

Thoughts?
Thanks.
-=r

[1] http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/184011
[2] http://snippets.dzone.com/posts/show/3516
[3] http://facets.rubyforge.org/doc/api/core/classes/Kernel.html#M000425

In This Thread

Prev Next