[#33000] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4014][Open] Case-Sensitivity of Property Names Depends on Regexp Encoding — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #4014: Case-Sensitivity of Property Names Depends on Regexp Encoding

11 messages 2010/11/01

[#33021] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4015][Open] File::DIRECT Constant for O_DIRECT — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

Hi,

15 messages 2010/11/02

[#33139] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4044][Open] Regex matching errors when using \W character class and /i option — Ben Hoskings <redmine@...>

Bug #4044: Regex matching errors when using \W character class and /i option

8 messages 2010/11/11

[#33162] Windows Unicode (chcp 65001) Generates incorrect output — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>

Hello,

10 messages 2010/11/14

[#33246] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4068][Open] Replace current standard Date/DateTime library with home_run — Jeremy Evans <redmine@...>

Feature #4068: Replace current standard Date/DateTime library with home_run

40 messages 2010/11/17

[#33255] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4071][Open] support basic auth for Net::HTTP.get requests — "coderrr ." <redmine@...>

Feature #4071: support basic auth for Net::HTTP.get requests

23 messages 2010/11/19

[#33322] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Shugo Maeda <redmine@...>

Feature #4085: Refinements and nested methods

94 messages 2010/11/24
[#33345] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/11/25

Hi,

[#33356] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/11/25

Hi,

[#33375] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/11/25

Hi,

[#33381] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/11/25

Hi,

[#33387] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Magnus Holm <judofyr@...> 2010/11/25

Woah, this is very nice stuff! Some comments/questions:

[#33487] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...> 2010/11/30

This is a long response, and for that I apologize. I want to make sure

[#33535] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/12/03

Hi,

[#33519] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/12/02

Hi,

[#33523] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/12/02

Hi,

[#33539] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/12/03

Hi,

[#33543] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/12/03

Hi,

[#33546] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/12/03

Hi,

[#33548] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/12/03

Hi,

[#33567] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/12/04

Hi,

[#33595] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...> 2010/12/06

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Shugo Maeda <shugo@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#33367] Planning to release 1.8.7 fixes on 12/25 (Japanese timezone) — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hello,

20 messages 2010/11/25
[#33439] Re: Planning to release 1.8.7 fixes on 12/25 (Japanese timezone) — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2010/11/27

2010/11/25 Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org>:

[#33456] [Request for Comment] avoid timer thread — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

Hi,

25 messages 2010/11/29
[#35152] Re: [Request for Comment] avoid timer thread — Mark Somerville <mark@...> 2011/02/08

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:53:03AM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:

[#36077] Re: [Request for Comment] avoid timer thread — Mark Somerville <mark@...> 2011/05/09

On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 09:24:13PM +0900, Mark Somerville wrote:

[#36952] Re: [Request for Comment] avoid timer thread — Eric Wong <normalperson@...> 2011/06/10

Mark Somerville <mark@scottishclimbs.com> wrote:

[#37080] Re: [Request for Comment] avoid timer thread — Mark Somerville <mark@...> 2011/06/13

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 05:57:11AM +0900, Eric Wong wrote:

[#37103] Re: [Request for Comment] avoid timer thread — Eric Wong <normalperson@...> 2011/06/13

Mark Somerville <mark@scottishclimbs.com> wrote:

[#37187] Re: [Request for Comment] avoid timer thread — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2011/06/16

(2011/06/14 3:37), Eric Wong wrote:

[#37195] Re: [Request for Comment] avoid timer thread — Eric Wong <normalperson@...> 2011/06/17

SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:

[#37205] Re: [Request for Comment] avoid timer thread — Eric Wong <normalperson@...> 2011/06/17

Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:

[#33469] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4100][Open] Improve Net::HTTP documentation — Eric Hodel <redmine@...>

Feature #4100: Improve Net::HTTP documentation

12 messages 2010/11/29

[ruby-core:33403] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods

From: Shugo Maeda <shugo@...>
Date: 2010-11-26 04:39:12 UTC
List: ruby-core #33403
Hi,

2010/11/26 Yusuke ENDOH <mame@tsg.ne.jp>:
>>> odule FooExt
>>> efine(Foo)
>>> ..
>>> nd
>>>
>>> (equivalent to)
>>>
>>> odule FooExt
>>> efine(Foo) { include FooExt }
>>> ..
>>> nd
>>
>> Could you tell me why you need this feature?
>
> Because it requires less indentation, I thought.

I see.  refine without blocks looks confusing for me because it works
different from refine with a block.

> But I found out that it has a problem of [ruby-core:33386] (1)...

I think the above code should work because the refinement of Foo is
enabled in FooExt.
It may be a bug.

>>>> I don't think we need new keywords even if it is a big change,
>>>> because some essential features such as module inclusion
>>>> have no keyword in Ruby.
>>>
>>> Indeed. ut conventionally, essential features that involve
>>> code block (such as class/module definition, method definition
>>> and control statements) have their special keywords.
>>
>> I guess that most of these constructs have reasons why they need
>> keywords and special syntax.
>
> I don't think so. class Foo; end" can be written as "Foo =
> Class.new { }" (though there are indeed subtle differences between
> them).

"refine Foo do end" is different from "Foo = Class.new {}" because
"refine Foo do end" looks good, but "Foo = Class.new {}" doesn't.
I think how it looks is more important than whether it uses keywords or not.

>> If refine is a keyword, there is one good thing. e don't need "do"
>> after class names.
>>
>> efine Fixnum
>> ..
>> nd
>
> The API design that "def" statements are put in a Ruby's block,
> is slightly weird (for me).  guess that there is no precedent of
> such a style in Ruby's embedded featues, except meta programming
> (such as Class.new and class_eval).
> From now on, does Ruby encourage such a style in casual use?

I think Module#refine is a meta programming feature like class_eval,
and most application programmers need not use it directly.
And, "refine Foo do end" looks not so bad, so I think the new keyword
refine has more cons than pros.

-- 
Shugo Maeda

In This Thread