[#30995] [Bug #3523] win32 exception c0000029 on exit using fibers — B Kelly <redmine@...>

Bug #3523: win32 exception c0000029 on exit using fibers

19 messages 2010/07/02

[#31100] [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Ricardo Panaggio <panaggio.ricardo@...>

Hello,

26 messages 2010/07/07
[#31148] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...> 2010/07/09

> As this it my first patch to Ruby, I don't know where to begin with.

[#31320] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Ricardo Panaggio <panaggio.ricardo@...> 2010/07/16

Sorry for leaving this thread for so long. I've tried to finish the

[#31322] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2010/07/16

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 06:55:35AM +0900, Ricardo Panaggio wrote:

[#31324] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Caleb Clausen <vikkous@...> 2010/07/17

NB: I am Ricardo's mentor for this project.

[#31331] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...> 2010/07/17

On 17 July 2010 06:00, Caleb Clausen <vikkous@gmail.com> wrote:

[#31332] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Caleb Clausen <vikkous@...> 2010/07/17

On 7/17/10, Benoit Daloze <eregontp@gmail.com> wrote:

[#31138] Why is there no standard way of creating a String from a char *? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...>

Hi!

14 messages 2010/07/08
[#31146] Re: Why is there no standard way of creating a String from a char *? — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2010/07/09

(2010/07/09 7:04), Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#31149] Re: Why is there no standard way of creating a String from a char *? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2010/07/09

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 06:20, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#31150] Re: Why is there no standard way of creating a String from a char *? — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2010/07/09

(2010/07/09 18:28), Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#31217] [Bug #3562] regression in respond_to? — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Bug #3562: regression in respond_to?

14 messages 2010/07/12

[#31269] [Bug #3566] memory leak when spawning+joining Threads in a loop — Eric Wong <redmine@...>

Bug #3566: memory leak when spawning+joining Threads in a loop

14 messages 2010/07/13

[#31399] [Backport #3595] Theres no encoding to differentiate a stream of Binary data from an 8-Bit ASCII string — Dreamcat Four <redmine@...>

Backport #3595: Theres no encoding to differentiate a stream of Binary data from an 8-Bit ASCII string

17 messages 2010/07/21

[#31459] [Bug #3607] [trunk/r28731] Gem.path has disappeared? — Ollivier Robert <redmine@...>

Bug #3607: [trunk/r28731] Gem.path has disappeared?

22 messages 2010/07/23

[#31519] [Bug #3622] Net::HTTP does not wait to send request body with Expect: 100-continue — Eric Hodel <redmine@...>

Bug #3622: Net::HTTP does not wait to send request body with Expect: 100-continue

9 messages 2010/07/28

[ruby-core:31127] Re: [Backport #3550] Floating Point Representation Prevents Raising to Fractional Power

From: Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...>
Date: 2010-07-08 10:40:45 UTC
List: ruby-core #31127
On 8 July 2010 10:32, Milind Pandit <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Backport #3550: Floating Point Representation Prevents Raising to Fractional Power
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3550
>
> Author: Milind Pandit
> Status: Open, Priority: Normal
>
> Not sure why this literal float can be raised successfully to a fractional power, but when assigned to a variable, it returns NaN.
>
> $ ruby --version
> ruby 1.8.7 (2009-06-12 patchlevel 174) [universal-darwin10.0]
> $ irb
> -2.21792114695341 ** 0.1
> => -1.08291560040828
>>> -2.21792114695341 ** 1.1
> => -2.40182141051126
>>> a = -2.21792114695341
> => -2.21792114695341
>>> a ** 0.1
> => NaN # Expected: -1.08291560040828
>>> a ** 1.1
> => NaN # Expected: -2.40182141051126
>>> -2.21792114695341.to_f ** 1.1
> => NaN # Expected: -1.08291560040828
>>> -2.21792114695341.to_f ** 0.1
> => NaN # Expected: -2.40182141051126
>>> a - -2.21792114695341
> => 0.0
>>> (a - -2.21792114695341).zero?
> => true
>

Because the answer is complex, and when you use both literal, the
precedence of #** is higher than #-@
> (-2.21792114695341) ** 1.1
=> NaN
But
> -2.21792114695341 ** 1.1
=> -2.40182141051126

In 1.9, Complex are in the core and so:
> (-2.21792114695341) ** 1.1
=> (-2.2842679034439537-0.742203633301588i)

I believe it is possible in 1.8, but "require 'complex'" did not
resolve this for me.

In This Thread

Prev Next