[#29270] Proposal: Module#thunk_method — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>

Many people use define_method solely so they can define a new method

13 messages 2010/04/06

[#29293] URI.(un)escape deprecated? — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@...>

Hi.

16 messages 2010/04/07
[#29366] Re: URI.(un)escape deprecated? — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2010/04/08

2010/4/7 Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@marc-andre.ca>:

[#29313] [Bug #3112] require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default — Usaku NAKAMURA <redmine@...>

Bug #3112: require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default

28 messages 2010/04/08
[#29315] [Bug #3112] require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...> 2010/04/08

Issue #3112 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.

[#29336] Re: [Bug #3112] require "yaml" doesn't use psych as default — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2010/04/08

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:06:55PM +0900, Yui NARUSE wrote:

[#29395] [Bug #3119] [Patch] "IOError (closed stream)" error with tempfile unlink then close usage — Simon Nicholls <redmine@...>

Bug #3119: [Patch] "IOError (closed stream)" error with tempfile unlink then close usage

9 messages 2010/04/09

[#29427] [Bug #3124] SocketError on SnowLeopard (during make test-all) — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Bug #3124: SocketError on SnowLeopard (during make test-all)

10 messages 2010/04/11

[#29462] [Feature #3131] add Kernel#Hash() method like Kernel#Array() — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #3131: add Kernel#Hash() method like Kernel#Array()

10 messages 2010/04/11

[#29464] [Bug #3132] …/nokogiri-1.4.1/ext/nokogiri/nokogiri.bundle: [BUG] Bus Error — Ashley Williams <redmine@...>

Bug #3132: …/nokogiri-1.4.1/ext/nokogiri/nokogiri.bundle: [BUG] Bus Error

8 messages 2010/04/12

[#29486] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Bug #3140: gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9

102 messages 2010/04/13
[#29489] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2010/04/13

After a brief discussion with Eric Hodel about this, there are a few =

[#29513] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2010/04/14

Is there any comment on this? This is a big bug in 1.9.2 that we'd like =

[#29526] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Rich Kilmer <rich.kilmer@...> 2010/04/15

I wrote this original code in gem_prelude.

[#31002] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...> 2010/07/02

Issue #3140 has been updated by Aaron Patterson.

[#31003] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/07/02

Hi,

[#31005] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...> 2010/07/02

We are about to ship a version of Ruby with a built in package manager with

[#31104] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yusuke Endoh <redmine@...> 2010/07/07

Issue #3140 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.

[#31108] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...> 2010/07/07

> I've commited the patch to trunk.

[#31193] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/07/11

Hi,

[#31223] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...> 2010/07/12

> Roger, could you re-try to build from scratch? =A0Could you apply

[#31215] [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yehuda Katz <redmine@...> 2010/07/12

Issue #3140 has been updated by Yehuda Katz.

[#31218] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/07/12

Hi,

[#29528] [Bug #3150] net/https peer verification doesn't do anything — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #3150: net/https peer verification doesn't do anything

11 messages 2010/04/15

[#29578] [Bug #3163] SyntaxError when using variable which is also a method in current scope with a Symbol argument — Benoit Daloze <redmine@...>

Bug #3163: SyntaxError when using variable which is also a method in current scope with a Symbol argument

17 messages 2010/04/17
[#29583] [Bug #3163] SyntaxError when using variable which is also a method in current scope with a Symbol argument — caleb clausen <redmine@...> 2010/04/18

Issue #3163 has been updated by caleb clausen.

[#29641] [Feature #3176] Thread#priority= should actually do something — caleb clausen <redmine@...>

Feature #3176: Thread#priority= should actually do something

28 messages 2010/04/19

[#29710] [Bug #3185] File.expand_path repeats forward slashes at the beginning of the path — Brian Ford <redmine@...>

Bug #3185: File.expand_path repeats forward slashes at the beginning of the path

10 messages 2010/04/21

[#29835] [Bug #3212] ConditionVariable may become inconsistent for interrupted threads — Sylvain Joyeux <redmine@...>

Bug #3212: ConditionVariable may become inconsistent for interrupted threads

24 messages 2010/04/28

[#29868] [Bug:trunk] assert now passes non-boolean result — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>

Hi,

15 messages 2010/04/29

[ruby-core:29696] Re: [Bug #1844] Immediates Should Not Respond to :dup

From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2010-04-21 14:40:37 UTC
List: ruby-core #29696
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:10 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Shyouhei Urabe wrote:
>
>> Issue #1844 has been updated by Shyouhei Urabe.
>>
>>
>> Anyway when getting back to :dup story, I'm not against to make it
>> more "reliable". =A0But there seems to be several menu here:
>>
>> * respond_to?(:dup) to be false and calling dup to raise exception.
>> Runpaint's original suggestion.
>> * respond_to?(:dup) to be true and dup to return self. Jeremy's idea.
>
> My own difficulty with Jeremy's idea is that 1 isn't a duplicate of 1.
> In general, if x.dup returns x, it's not returning a duplicate of x,
> so the method name becomes problematic.

I agree with Jeremy.

The reason I dup an object is so that if I can change the state of the
duplicate without affecting the original object.

Since immediate objects are immutable, I can't change their state so
having dup return the original is not an issue.

Having to code around the possibility that dup will throw an error
seems worse than just having immediates just handle them in what seems
a reasonable fashion.

As a reference point, in Smalltalk the SmallInteger copy method
returns the receiver, this is a direct analogy to Fixnum#dup

--=20
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick
Twitter: @RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

In This Thread