[#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:27316] Re: select!

From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2009-12-24 12:01:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #27316
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote=
:

>> |Is there any reason there's no select!
>>
>> Enumerables cannot have bang method, since they are not always
>> mutable. =A0The reason we don't have Array#select! is that I feel the
>> word select means picking up elements, not removing non-selecting
>> elements. =A0But I once felt same way to map! and (English speaking)
>> people persuaded me, so same thing could happen on select! as well.
>
> I agree with you. The idea of a destructive select makes no sense to
> me. Selecting implies that there's a result set that's separate from
> the original collection.

I think it's fine.  It's an aggressive selection, like selecting a
sports team from a squad of available players.

> "keep" might be a better name for an operation that's a kind of
> reverse reject!.

It seems wrong to me to invent new names when there's already a logical one=
.

  reject   reject!
  select    ???

It's obvious what should go there, whether it's immediately appealing or no=
t.

The least you can say is that it's perfectly clear (from the name)
what select! would do if it existed.

As a datum: I've frequently typed select! in the past, expecting it to
be there, so it _is_ useful to me.  (I then add it myself, of course,
but curse having to do so.)

--
Gavin Sinclair

In This Thread