[#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> wrote:

[#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> wrote:

[#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:23545] Re: a feature for ruby: Kernel#in?

From: "Martin J. Dst" <duerst@...>
Date: 2009-05-25 07:02:54 UTC
List: ruby-core #23545
On 2009/05/25 13:41, Roger Pack wrote:

> 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

I don't think you can say which one is clearer in general, but I very 
much agree that having both is a plus, especially also because

   if a.in?(STUFF)

may simplify to

   if in? STUFF

in some contexts.

Regards,    Martin.

> 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
>
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

In This Thread