[#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:24446] Re: Hash[[1,2]] => {} ??

From: "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
Date: 2009-07-19 20:33:27 UTC
List: ruby-core #24446
David A. Black wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
>> When the number of argument for Hash[] is 1,
>> the argument must be a hash (or hash like object) or an array (or
>> array like).
>>
>> And the array object must be an array of two or one length array.
>> Your code is an array of integer, so the code returns the empty hash.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind that. It seems awfully
> complicated and hard to follow:
> 
>snip<
>
> I'm not clear on the underlying design principle, I guess. The 1.8
> version seems like it was easier to read; an odd number of arguments
> was wrong, which makes sense (to me) for a hash.

The motivation of thie spec is for an array of key-value arrays.

>> Hash[[[:a,1], [:b,2], [:c]]]
=> {:a=>1, :b=>2, :c=>nil}

So arrays beyond this will be empty.

> Wouldn't it be clearer if Hash[[1,2]] was an error?

How about following,

>> Hash[[[:a,1], [:b,2], [:c], nil]]
=> {:a=>1, :b=>2, :c=>nil}

But raise if the content of argument array is not neither array nor nil,
it maybe adoptable without compatibility problem.

-- 
NARUSE, Yui  <naruse@airemix.jp>

In This Thread