[#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:27263] [Bug #2422] splat operator fails on array of 1 element

From: Dave B <redmine@...>
Date: 2009-12-21 06:48:19 UTC
List: ruby-core #27263
Issue #2422 has been updated by Dave B.



Tanaka Akira wrote:
> 2009/12/21 katz bo <redmine@ruby-lang.org>:
>> I personally think *[1, 2, 3] should be always unpacked first.
>>
>> a = *[1, 2, 3] #(unpack Array due to *) should be equal to:
>> a = 1, 2, 3    #(as Ruby is very smart) is equal to: (this is really the tricky part)
>> *a = 1, 2, 3   #which packs 1, 2, 3 into Array a. Hence is equal to
>> a = [1, 2, 3]
>>
>> a = *[1] #(unpack Array due to *) should be equal to:
>> a = 1    #(again, Ruby is smart it won't read this as *a = 1)
>
> Your way cannot interpret a = *[].
>
> a = *[]
> a =
>
> It is not a valid Ruby statement.

I would expect to see the value of the first element in the empty array
as 1.8.6 provides ...

puts 'ruby %s (%s) [%s]' % [RUBY_VERSION, RUBY_RELEASE_DATE, RUBY_PLATFORM]

a = *[]
p a

a = [][0]
p a

# ruby 1.8.6 (2008-08-11) [i386-mswin32]
# nil
# nil


# ruby 1.9.2 (2009-05-19) [i386-mswin32_90]
# []
# nil


I understood your last reply to me about "a, =" in multiple assignment
with a single RHS but, to me, "a = 1" is multiple assignment with
balanced (single) LHS/RHS.

Producing an empty array from a splatted empty array seems unproductive. ;)


daz

----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2422

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

In This Thread