[#27003] [Bug #2422] splat operator fails on array of 1 element — Raul Parolari <redmine@...>

Bug #2422: splat operator fails on array of 1 element

12 messages 2009/12/02

[#27025] [Backport #2431] StringIO#{gets,readlines} with "" (paragraph mode) trims last "\n" — Hiroshi NAKAMURA <redmine@...>

Backport #2431: StringIO#{gets,readlines} with "" (paragraph mode) trims last "\n"

8 messages 2009/12/04

[#27086] [Feature #2454] OpenSSL has no maintainer — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...>

Feature #2454: OpenSSL has no maintainer

16 messages 2009/12/07

[#27120] #to_enum ignores block? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...>

Is #to_enum ignoring its block expected?

11 messages 2009/12/09

[#27135] better GC? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...>

Could I put in a small plea for a better GC?

56 messages 2009/12/10
[#27136] Re: better GC? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/12/11

Hi,

[#27476] Re: better GC? — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2010/01/07

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 09:07:16AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#27477] Re: better GC? — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...> 2010/01/07

Excerpts from Paul Brannan's message of Thu Jan 07 21:53:34 +0200 2010:

[#27563] Re: better GC? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2010/01/12

[#27199] [Backport #2488] thread usage can result in bad HANDLE — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Backport #2488: thread usage can result in bad HANDLE

12 messages 2009/12/16

[#27286] [Bug #2515] Array#select! — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #2515: Array#select!

17 messages 2009/12/22

[#27327] [Bug #2531] Ruby 1.8.7-p248 fails to cross-compile same version — Luis Lavena <redmine@...>

Bug #2531: Ruby 1.8.7-p248 fails to cross-compile same version

9 messages 2009/12/25

[#27360] [Feature #2542] URI lib should be updated to RFC 39886 — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Feature #2542: URI lib should be updated to RFC 39886

15 messages 2009/12/31

[ruby-core:27018] [Bug #2427] possible bug in Method#source_location (from )

From: "ujihisa ." <redmine@...>
Date: 2009-12-04 00:55:15 UTC
List: ruby-core #27018
Bug #2427: possible bug in Method#source_location (from [ruby-core:27014])
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2427

Author: ujihisa .
Status: Assigned, Priority: Normal
Assigned to: Usaku NAKAMURA, Target version: 1.9.x
ruby -v: ruby 1.9.2dev (2009-11-11 trunk 25717) [i386-mingw32]

Originally reported by Roger Pack:

> It appears that Method#source_location returns different values for
> 1.9.1 and 1.9.2dev for this code:
>
> class A
>
>  def go( a=3,
>   b=3)
>  end
> end
> puts A.instance_method(:go).source_location
>
> 1.9.1 says line 3, 1.9.2 says line 4.
>
> I assume 1.9.1 is correct? (I would expect it to be the line it
> *starts* on, and if you take out the default values, both 1.9.1 and
> 1.9.2 says line 3).
> Thanks.
> -r

According to Luis Lavena's report,

> a.rb, ending either with LF or CRLF:
>
> C:\Users\Luis\Desktop>pik tags yarv ruby a.rb
> ruby 1.9.1p243 (2009-07-16 revision 24175) [i386-mingw32]
>
> a.rb
> 3
>
> ruby 1.9.2dev (2009-11-11 trunk 25717) [i386-mingw32]
>
> a.rb
> 4

But I couldn't reproduce the issue on Mac OS X. Both LF and CRLF scripts said the same results.

> In my environment, both versions of ruby said same results.
>
> $ ruby191 -v a.rb
> ruby 1.9.1p281 (2009-08-09 revision 24476) [i386-darwin9.7.0]
> a.rb
> 4
>
> $ ruby192 -v a.rb
> ruby 1.9.2dev (2009-12-04 trunk 25986) [i386-darwin9.8.0]
> a.rb
> 4


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

In This Thread

Prev Next