[#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:26778] Re: Ruby constant lookup

From: Shugo Maeda <shugo@...>
Date: 2009-11-17 06:29:33 UTC
List: ruby-core #26778
Hi,

At Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:18:29 +0900,
Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that we should have both, but I think that the lexical scope case
> should win. Consider the case of RSpec:
> 
> describe "Date" do
>   it "equals itself" do
>     Date.today.should == Date.today
>   end
> end
> 
> If we use dynamic scope first, then if RSpec adds Spec::Date, it will
> suddenly break this spec. Lexical scope is more intuitive, and is expected
> by many normal uses today. On the other hand, we want to be able to access
> class variables in the eval'ed scope. I think a good solution is to add the
> dynamic scope _after_ the lexical scope, rather than _before_ it.

My patch first searches the constants of the receiver of class_eval, and
if it fails, then searches outer classes or modules.  As a result, a
constant in the receiver may hide a constant in an outer class or
module.

My patch is useful if you know the receiver of class_eval, but you
don't know it, right?

Back to the example of MimeResponds:

module ActionController
  module MimeResponds
    extend ActiveSupport::Concern

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

class Foo
  Responder = "this is not a responder which MimeResponds requires"

  include ActionController::MimeResponds
end

The author of MimeResponds doesn't know that Foo defines Responder in
it, and it breaks the code (with my patch).

Did I catch your point?

If so, I agree that my patch is not useful in this situation.

However, I guess "to add the dynamic scope _after_ the lexical scope,
rather than _before_ it" doesn't affect class variable lookup, because
only the first element of Module.nesting is used during class variable
lookup.

I guess we have four options now:

(1) As you suggested, revert to the behavior of Ruby 1.8, and add a
    new method (or flag) to enable the new behavior.
(2) Separate class variable lookup from constant lookup, and revert
    constant lookup to the behavior of Ruby 1.8.
(3) Change nothing.  You should always use the fully qualified form of
    constant lookup.
(4) Apply my patch.  You should still use the fully qualified form of
    constant lookup, if you don't know the receiver of class_eval.

-- 
Shugo Maeda <shugo@ruby-lang.org>

In This Thread