[#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:31470] [Bug #3609] Float Infinity comparisons in 1.9

From: Tomasz Wegrzanowski <redmine@...>
Date: 2010-07-24 04:14:59 UTC
List: ruby-core #31470
Bug #3609: Float Infinity comparisons in 1.9
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3609

Author: Tomasz Wegrzanowski
Status: Open, Priority: Normal
ruby -v: ruby 1.9.1p429 (2010-07-02 revision 28523) [i386-darwin9]

The way <=> works on pretty much everything in Ruby
is that if a <=> b return 0, 1, or -1, it completely
determines the entire set of comparisons
a==b, a>=b, a>b, a<=b, a<b,
b<=>a, b==a, b>=a, b>a, b<=a, b<a.
(and if it doesn't, a==b/b==a will be both true or both false,
everything else will raise exception or return false/nil)

Float Infinity in 1.9 but not 1.8 seems to violate that.
Comparing it with strange things returns 1 if it's on the left,
but raises exception in every other way.

inf = 1.0/0.0 
inf <=> "foo" # => 1
"foo" <=> inf # ArgumentError: comparison of String with Float failed

This interacts even more strangely with very large bignums and the
"if bignum converts to float, it equals that float" thing Ruby currently does
[ruby-core:31376].

inf=1.0/0.0
huge=10**500

Consistent either way:
inf  >= huge # => true
huge <= inf  # => true
inf  < huge  # => false
huge > inf   # => false

Consistent only with mathematical interpretation
(or with "equal if converts, except for special cases
for infinities"):
inf <=> huge # =>  1
huge<=> inf  # => -1
huge <  inf  # => true
huge >= inf  # => false

Consistent only with "equal if converts":
inf  == huge  # => true
huge == inf   # => true
inf   > huge  # => false
inf  <= huge  # => true

Now I'd definitely prefer mathematical interpretation of floats,
to "equal if converts", but this just doesn't make any sense
no matter which way I look at it.


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

In This Thread

Prev Next