[#26488] Add Standard Deviation Function to Math Module — Daniel Cohen <danielc2017@...>

This patch adds a Standard Deviation function to the Math Module. It takes

25 messages 2009/11/02
[#26489] Re: Add Standard Deviation Function to Math Module — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/11/03

Hi,

[#26490] Re: Add Standard Deviation Function to Math Module — Daniel Cohen <danielc2017@...> 2009/11/03

OK,

[#26493] Re: Add Standard Deviation Function to Math Module — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/11/03

Hi,

[#26511] Re: Add Standard Deviation Function to Math Module — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2009/11/03

Hi,

[#26492] HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hello,

35 messages 2009/11/03
[#26496] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/11/03

Hi,

[#26507] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@...> 2009/11/03

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wro=

[#26514] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — "Martin J. Dst" <duerst@...> 2009/11/04

Just a thought: What about implementing this with an option on Hash:new,

[#26522] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2009/11/04

Hi,

[#26555] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/11/05

Hi,

[#26584] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Yugui <yugui@...> 2009/11/07

2009/11/6 Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>:

[#26589] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/11/07

Hi,

[#26593] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Lourens Naud<lourens@...> 2009/11/07

Hi,

[#26523] [Bug #2330] Non systematic segmentation fault with autoload rubyspec — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Bug #2330: Non systematic segmentation fault with autoload rubyspec

12 messages 2009/11/04

[#26560] [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...>

Feature #2340: Removing YAML/Syck

38 messages 2009/11/06
[#26562] [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...> 2009/11/06

Issue #2340 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.

[#26567] Re: [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2009/11/06

On Nov 6, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Yui NARUSE wrote:

[#26568] Re: [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — Jon <jon.forums@...> 2009/11/06

> > Issue #2340 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.

[#26571] Re: [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...> 2009/11/06

Jon wrote:

[#26574] Re: [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2009/11/06

On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 12:59:25AM +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:

[#26635] [Feature #2348] RBTree Should be Added to the Standard Library — James Gray <redmine@...>

Feature #2348: RBTree Should be Added to the Standard Library

20 messages 2009/11/08
[#28842] [Feature #2348] RBTree Should be Added to the Standard Library — James Gray <redmine@...> 2010/03/21

Issue #2348 has been updated by James Gray.

[#26650] [Feature #2350] Unicode specific functionality on String in 1.9 — Manfred Stienstra <redmine@...>

Feature #2350: Unicode specific functionality on String in 1.9

12 messages 2009/11/09
[#28985] [Feature #2350](Rejected) Unicode specific functionality on String in 1.9 — Yusuke Endoh <redmine@...> 2010/03/25

Issue #2350 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.

[#28993] Re: [Feature #2350](Rejected) Unicode specific functionality on String in 1.9 — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2010/03/25

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 14:45, Yusuke Endoh <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#26704] Maintainer confirmation process done. — "Yugui (Yuki Sonoda)" <yugui@...>

I'm sorry for my closing the maintainer confirmation process so late.

13 messages 2009/11/12

[#26736] [Bug #2365] Matrix: poor handling of coercion errors [patch] — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Bug #2365: Matrix: poor handling of coercion errors [patch]

12 messages 2009/11/14

[#26772] [Bug #2378] Regression in ParseDate.parsedate('nn-nn') — Vladimir Sizikov <redmine@...>

Bug #2378: Regression in ParseDate.parsedate('nn-nn')

10 messages 2009/11/16

[#26774] Ruby constant lookup — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>

Over the past six months or so, I have been working with the new Ruby 1.9

22 messages 2009/11/16
[#26775] Re: Ruby constant lookup — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2009/11/17

Hi,

[#26777] Re: Ruby constant lookup — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...> 2009/11/17

Shugo,

[#26778] Re: Ruby constant lookup — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2009/11/17

Hi,

[#26869] Caching #to_s for immutables (and a possible future for constant-folding) — Kurt Stephens <ks@...>

I have a proof-of-concept patch to MRI that caches #to_s values for

16 messages 2009/11/23
[#26936] Re: Caching #to_s for immutables (and a possible future for constant-folding) — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...> 2009/11/29

> =A0It reduces the number of #to_s Strings created during the MRI test sui=

[#26958] Re: Caching #to_s for immutables (and a possible future for constant-folding) [with patch] — Kurt Stephens <ks@...> 2009/11/30

The attached patch add caching of #to_s results to the main immutable

[#26960] Re: Caching #to_s for immutables (and a possible future for constant-folding) [with patch] — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...> 2009/11/30

> Yes. =A0The MRI test suite runs at 45 sec with these changes and at 53 se=

[#26963] Re: Caching #to_s for immutables (and a possible future for constant-folding) [with patch] — Kurt Stephens <ks@...> 2009/11/30

I just ran rubyspec against it; ~ 5% time improvement.

[ruby-core:26544] [Bug #2337] "for object in collection" syntax not thread-safe

From: John-Michael fischer <redmine@...>
Date: 2009-11-05 00:53:58 UTC
List: ruby-core #26544
Bug #2337: "for object in collection" syntax not thread-safe
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2337

Author: John-Michael fischer
Status: Open, Priority: High
ruby -v: ruby 1.9.1p243 (2009-07-16 revision 24175) [x86_64-linux]

After spending many hours shooting in the dark I have discovered the following.

METHOD 1
The following code _will not_ execute as one would expect.
for object in collection
  Thread.new(object) do
    some_method(object)
  end
end

METHOD 2
The following code _will_ execute as one would expect as long as [important] obj_scope has not been used outside of the loop before.
If obj_scope has been used outside the loop previous to this code, then its execution will be identical to the behavior above.
collection.size.times do |i|
  obj_scope = collection[i]
  Thread.new(obj_scope) do
    some_method(obj_scope)
  end
end

The expected behavior is that some_method will one run once for each object in collection in its own thread.
When using METHOD 1 what actually happens is some_method is called precisely collection.size times, but the object passed can be the same object 3 or 4 times.  The end result is that several objects in collection will be used many times for the function call and some objects will never be used.

I've attached sample code which illustrates my issue.  Please change the first line from "#!/usr/um/bin/ruby" to the location of _your_ ruby 1.9.1 interpreter.


----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org

In This Thread

Prev Next