[#24105] [Bug #1711] Marshal Failing to Round-Trip Certain Recurisve Data Structures — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1711: Marshal Failing to Round-Trip Certain Recurisve Data Structures

9 messages 2009/07/01

[#24116] [Bug #1715] Numeric#arg for NaN is Inconsistent Across Versions — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1715: Numeric#arg for NaN is Inconsistent Across Versions

10 messages 2009/07/02

[#24240] [Bug #1755] IO#reopen Doesn't Fully Associate with Given Stream on 1.9; Ignores pos on 1.8 — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1755: IO#reopen Doesn't Fully Associate with Given Stream on 1.9; Ignores pos on 1.8

8 messages 2009/07/09

[#24321] [Bug #1773] Gem path doesn't honor user gem? — Lin Jen-Shin <redmine@...>

Bug #1773: Gem path doesn't honor user gem?

12 messages 2009/07/14

[#24390] [Feature #1784] More encoding (Big5 series) support? — Lin Jen-Shin <redmine@...>

Feature #1784: More encoding (Big5 series) support?

12 messages 2009/07/16

[#24467] Re: [ruby-cvs:31226] Ruby:r24008 (ruby_1_8_6): Removed private on to_date and to_datetime. — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hello.

10 messages 2009/07/21

[#24472] [Feature #1800] rubygems can replace system executable files — Kazuhiro NISHIYAMA <redmine@...>

Feature #1800: rubygems can replace system executable files

13 messages 2009/07/21

[#24530] [Feature #1811] Default BasicSocket.do_not_reverse_lookup to true — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Feature #1811: Default BasicSocket.do_not_reverse_lookup to true

9 messages 2009/07/23

[#24624] [Bug #1844] Immediates Should Not Respond to :dup — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1844: Immediates Should Not Respond to :dup

15 messages 2009/07/30

[ruby-core:24351] Re: is this expected?

From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2009-07-15 19:54:06 UTC
List: ruby-core #24351
Roger Pack wrote:
>> currently:
>>
>>>> {1 => 2} == {1 => 2.0}
>> => true
>>
>>>> {1 => 2} == {1.0 => 2}
>> => false
>>
>> This "mix floats and fixnums, sometimes it works, sometimes it
>> doesn't"  was somewhat surprising to me.
> 
> Since there was no response, I'll consider this a bug of some sort.
> The question is--should those 2 hashes be equal or not?

No. "Hash uses key.eql? to test keys for equality." -- ri Hash.

If it were true that {1 => 2} == {1.0 => 2}, then it would follow that

{1 => 2}[1] == {1.0 => 2}[1]

which is to say that

2 == nil

-- 
       vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407

In This Thread