[#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:24568] Proposal: match? with no backrefs

From: Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>
Date: 2009-07-27 03:39:43 UTC
List: ruby-core #24568
I was doing some work today to optimize the allocation in certain parts of
Rubygems, and one of the things that bedeviled me was an inability to do a
regex match without generating a bunch of objects. I'd like to be able to
do:
"string".match? (/regex/)

and have that be guaranteed to only allocate 2 objects, and have:

str.match?(regex)

be guaranteed to allocate 0 objects. It makes perfect sense to me that regex
operations in general generate backregs, but it would also seem reasonable
for a method like match? to return a boolean with no side-effects.

Thoughts?

-- 
Yehuda Katz
Developer | Engine Yard
(ph) 718.877.1325

In This Thread

Prev Next