[#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> wrote:

[#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

> t reduces the number of #to_s Strings created during the MRI test suite

[#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. he MRI test suite runs at 45 sec with these changes and at 53 sec

[#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:26774] Ruby constant lookup

From: Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>
Date: 2009-11-16 21:48:42 UTC
List: ruby-core #26774
Over the past six months or so, I have been working with the new Ruby 1.9
constant lookup rules. The rules change constant lookup from being _always_
lexically scoped, to changing when *_eval is used.

This change has produced some of the most serious challenges to getting
Rails working (and continuing to work) on Ruby 1.9. At least one reason is
that it makes DSLs harder to build, and Rails has a number of useful DSLs
that it uses. Another is that it causes abstraction pain.

For instance, you can do the following in Rails:

module ActionController::MimeResponds
  extend ActiveSupport::Concern

    included do
      inheritable_accessor :responder, :mimes_for_respond_to,
:instance_writer => false
      self.responder = ActionController::Responder
      clear_respond_to
    end
end

This is a wrapper around the very common:

def self.included(klass)
  klass.class_eval do
    # code here
  end
end

However, because it uses a block, it forces us into the Ruby 1.9 constant
lookup scheme. In this case it is not that big of a deal
(ActionController::Responder is not much worse than Responder), but even in
this case most users would expect to be able to use constants available in
the lexical scope. And indeed, since it works that way in Ruby 1.8,
significant code is created with that expectation, _which passes_ when
tested with Ruby 1.8.

Matz, I spoke with you and Koichi about this at Ruby Kaigi, and showed you
some other real-world examples of breakage. I would like to raise this issue
again in light of the fact that this has been, by far, the biggest real-life
difficulty in making Rails 1.9 compatible.

Because I understand the utility in the Ruby 1.9 approach, I would like to
suggest that users be allowed to choose which scoping they want. I suggest
that module_eval, by default, revert to Ruby 1.8 behavior. I also suggest
that we add a new method (or flag to module_eval) to enable the new
behavior.

Thank you,

Yehuda Katz
Developer | Engine Yard
(ph) 718.877.1325

In This Thread

Prev Next