[#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:27240] Re: Why doesn't Array include Comparable?

From: Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...>
Date: 2009-12-19 23:14:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #27240
2009/12/19 George <george.ogata@gmail.com>

> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Array already defines <=>, why not include Comparable as well?
>>
>> martin
>>
>>
> +1.  This has come up so many times over the years, and I have yet to see a
> good reason not to.
>
> The only argument I've seen against including Comparable is that it doesn't
> always make sense to "compare" arrays, but then why define #<=> ?  I think
> we should do both or neither.
>
> +1. That seems quite not logical, sure. But the only asset of having
Comparable is to add these methods: < <= => > and between?

So, that's probably rarely useful.

Another reason is, maybe, the first thing, is that an Array is Enumerable.
Then adding Comparable could look a little weared for newbies. But I think
that is not very relevant.

About performance, I really don't know ... (but creating Arrays doesn't seem
to be slower at all)

In This Thread