[#25936] [Bug:1.9] [rubygems] $LOAD_PATH includes bin directory — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>

Hi,

10 messages 2009/10/05

[#25943] Disabling tainting — Tony Arcieri <tony@...>

Would it make sense to have a flag passed to the interpreter on startup that

16 messages 2009/10/05

[#26028] [Bug #2189] Math.atanh(1) & Math.atanh(-1) should not raise an error — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Bug #2189: Math.atanh(1) & Math.atanh(-1) should not raise an error

14 messages 2009/10/10

[#26222] [Bug #2250] IO::for_fd() objects' finalization dangerously closes underlying fds — Mike Pomraning <redmine@...>

Bug #2250: IO::for_fd() objects' finalization dangerously closes underlying fds

11 messages 2009/10/22

[#26244] [Bug #2258] Kernel#require inside rb_require() inside rb_protect() inside SysV context fails — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Bug #2258: Kernel#require inside rb_require() inside rb_protect() inside SysV context fails

24 messages 2009/10/22

[#26361] [Feature #2294] [PATCH] ruby_bind_stack() to embed Ruby in coroutine — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #2294: [PATCH] ruby_bind_stack() to embed Ruby in coroutine

42 messages 2009/10/27

[#26371] [Bug #2295] segmentation faults — tomer doron <redmine@...>

Bug #2295: segmentation faults

16 messages 2009/10/27

[ruby-core:26160] Re: Array#pack with format 'H' accepts G-Z

From: Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...>
Date: 2009-10-19 11:47:39 UTC
List: ruby-core #26160
Hi,

2009/10/9 Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>:
> |Array#pack with format 'H' seems to accept not only alphabet A-F but
> |also G-Z.  Is it a spec, or bug?
> |
> |  ["0D"].pack("H*").unpack("C") #=> [13]
> |  ["0E"].pack("H*").unpack("C") #=> [14]
> |  ["0F"].pack("H*").unpack("C") #=> [15]
> |  ["0G"].pack("H*").unpack("C") #=> [0]
> |  ["0H"].pack("H*").unpack("C") #=> [1]
> |  ["0I"].pack("H*").unpack("C") #=> [2]
> |  ["0J"].pack("H*").unpack("C") #=> [3]
>
> It must be a bug.


Thank you for answering my question.
But after that, I realized that the format 'B' behaved in a similar
way:

  ["00100001"].pack("B*") #=> "!"
  ["00122223"].pack("B*") #=> "!"

In [ruby-dev:37308], you said that this behavior of 'B' is intended
for compatibility to perl.  Is the behavior of 'H' really a bug?


IMO, these behaviors are a little confusing.  It is easy to understand
for both 'B' and 'H' to reject the data if it contains irrelevant
characters.  But unfortunately, compatibility is also important.
I don't know what we should do..

-- 
Yusuke ENDOH <mame@tsg.ne.jp>

In This Thread

Prev Next