[#34033] The rights of ruby-core people and Myth of ruby-dev — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>

Some of you may don't know your rights.

32 messages 2011/01/03
[#34067] Re: The rights of ruby-core people and Myth of ruby-dev — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2011/01/04

On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:55:47AM +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:

[#34043] proposal: gem_prelude needs to die — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>

I think it is time for gem_prelude to die.

21 messages 2011/01/04
[#34077] Re: proposal: gem_prelude needs to die — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2011/01/05

2011/1/4 Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com>:

[#34091] Moving to Git? — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>

Hi,

87 messages 2011/01/05
[#34099] Re: Moving to Git? — KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...> 2011/01/05

> Hi,

[#34103] Re: Moving to Git? — "U.Nakamura" <usa@...> 2011/01/05

Hello,

[#34105] Re: Moving to Git? — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...> 2011/01/05

Em 05-01-2011 13:15, U.Nakamura escreveu:

[#34106] Re: Moving to Git? — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...> 2011/01/05

(2011/01/06 0:46), Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:

[#34112] Re: Moving to Git? — Jon <jon.forums@...> 2011/01/05

> > Well, I guess I can help listing some advantages. Using git:

[#34118] Re: Moving to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2011/01/05

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:28, Jon <jon.forums@gmail.com> wrote:

[#34121] Re: Moving to Git? — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...> 2011/01/05

Em 05-01-2011 17:16, mathew escreveu:

[#34129] Re: Moving to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2011/01/05

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 13:23, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas

[#34138] Re: Moving to Git? — Czarek <cezary.baginski@...> 2011/01/05

On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:50:24AM +0900, mathew wrote:

[#34188] Re: Moving to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2011/01/06

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 17:02, Czarek <cezary.baginski@gmail.com> wrote:

[#34191] Re: Moving to Git? — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...> 2011/01/06

On 07/01/11 at 01:05 +0900, mathew wrote:

[#34201] Re: Moving to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2011/01/06

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:36, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:

[#34206] Re: Moving to Git? — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...> 2011/01/07

On 07/01/11 at 08:07 +0900, mathew wrote:

[#34227] Re: Moving to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2011/01/07

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 23:50, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:

[#34231] Re: Moving to Git? — Daniel Bovensiepen <bovensiepen@...> 2011/01/07

Dear all,

[#34116] Re: Moving to Git? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/01/05

Hi,

[#34117] Re: Moving to Git? — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...> 2011/01/05

What kind of Redmine integration you are talking about? We use Redmine

[#34120] Re: Moving to Git? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/01/05

Hi,

[#34125] Re: Moving to Git? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2011/01/05

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 19:57, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#34124] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4235][Open] svn keywords in code prevent correct building of ruby using git mirror — Stephen Bannasch <redmine@...>

Bug #4235: svn keywords in code prevent correct building of ruby using git mirror

12 messages 2011/01/05

[#34171] [Ruby 1.8-Feature#4239][Open] Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8? — Shota Fukumori <redmine@...>

Feature #4239: Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8?

104 messages 2011/01/06
[#34514] [Ruby 1.8-Feature#4239] Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8? — Zeno Davatz <redmine@...> 2011/01/15

Issue #4239 has been updated by Zeno Davatz.

[#34516] Re: [Ruby 1.8-Feature#4239] Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8? — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...> 2011/01/15

(2011/01/16 0:11), Zeno Davatz wrote:

[#34214] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4247][Open] New features for Array#sample, Array#choice — Yoji Ojima <redmine@...>

Feature #4247: New features for Array#sample, Array#choice

10 messages 2011/01/07

[#34267] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4254][Open] Allow method transplanting — Jonas Pfenniger <redmine@...>

Feature #4254: Allow method transplanting

23 messages 2011/01/09
[#34280] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4254][Open] Allow method transplanting — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/01/10

Hi,

[#34299] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4256][Open] [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18) [i386-mingw32] — Rama Mahendravada <redmine@...>

Bug #4256: [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18) [i386-mingw32]

9 messages 2011/01/10

[#34318] ext/bigdecimal/lib/bigdecimal/util.rb — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>

Hi Murata!

14 messages 2011/01/11
[#34321] Re: ext/bigdecimal/lib/bigdecimal/util.rb — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/01/11

Hi,

[#34354] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4264][Open] General type coercion protocol for Ruby — Charles Nutter <redmine@...>

Feature #4264: General type coercion protocol for Ruby

33 messages 2011/01/11
[#34359] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4264][Open] General type coercion protocol for Ruby — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2011/01/11

[#34355] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4265][Open] Provide a core method Kernel#ruby for invoking a new Ruby instance — Charles Nutter <redmine@...>

Feature #4265: Provide a core method Kernel#ruby for invoking a new Ruby instance

15 messages 2011/01/11

[#34362] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4266][Open] Timeouts in threads cause "ThreadError: deadlock; recursive locking" — Christopher Bottaro <redmine@...>

Bug #4266: Timeouts in threads cause "ThreadError: deadlock; recursive locking"

12 messages 2011/01/11

[#34399] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4272][Open] rb_enc_str_new() causes segmentfault when using threads in parallel — Iñaki Baz Castillo <redmine@...>

Bug #4272: rb_enc_str_new() causes segmentfault when using threads in parallel

14 messages 2011/01/12

[#34534] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4283][Open] Timeout.timeout may cause application exit unintetionally — Motohiro KOSAKI <redmine@...>

Bug #4283: Timeout.timeout may cause application exit unintetionally

11 messages 2011/01/17

[#34537] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4285][Open] Ruby don't have asynchrounous exception safe syntax and It should have. — Motohiro KOSAKI <redmine@...>

Bug #4285: Ruby don't have asynchrounous exception safe syntax and It should have.

12 messages 2011/01/17

[#34550] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4288][Open] Allow invoking arbitrary method names with foo."something" syntax — Charles Nutter <redmine@...>

Feature #4288: Allow invoking arbitrary method names with foo."something" syntax

13 messages 2011/01/18
[#34616] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4288][Open] Allow invoking arbitrary method names with foo."something" syntax — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2011/01/19

[#34577] Importing rubygems 1.5.0 (release candidate) into trunk. — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>

I'm going to be committing rubygems 1.5.0 into trunk in a bit.

13 messages 2011/01/18

[#34632] Ruby operator equivalent to Groovy's "?." — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>

One of the few things I like in Groovy that Ruby doesn't support is

19 messages 2011/01/20

[#34634] Returning from the callee — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>

Sometimes it is useful to be able to return from the callee method.

15 messages 2011/01/20

[#34648] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4298][Open] Duration of calling String#[] with the same index is strangely related to string length. — Radosław Bułat <redmine@...>

Bug #4298: Duration of calling String#[] with the same index is strangely related to string length.

13 messages 2011/01/20

[#34861] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4326][Open] Fiber should respond to call() and [] — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Feature #4326: Fiber should respond to call() and []

21 messages 2011/01/26
[#34943] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4326] Fiber should respond to call() and [] — Charles Nutter <redmine@...> 2011/01/28

Issue #4326 has been updated by Charles Nutter.

[#34954] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4326] Fiber should respond to call() and [] — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2011/01/28

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 02:58:46AM +0900, Charles Nutter wrote:

[#34957] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4326] Fiber should respond to call() and [] — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...> 2011/01/29

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Aaron Patterson

[#34869] make ruby support line continuations ? — Marc Chantreux <khatar@...>

hello,

22 messages 2011/01/26
[#34878] Re: make ruby support line continuations ? — Jim Freeze <jimfreeze@...> 2011/01/26

> I love it so much i tried it in ruby. trying to rewrite:

[#34887] Re: make ruby support line continuations ? — Marc Chantreux <khatar@...> 2011/01/27

hello,

[#34889] Re: make ruby support line continuations ? — V咜 Ondruch <v.ondruch@...> 2011/01/27

Dne 27.1.2011 7:15, Marc Chantreux napsal(a):

[#34911] The ruby-lang.org downloads page should include RVM for OS X — Andrew Vos <andrew.vos@...>

(I sent this before I subscribed and I'm not sure if it bounced. Sorry if

21 messages 2011/01/27
[#34912] Re: The ruby-lang.org downloads page should include RVM for OS X — "Shota Fukumori (sora_h)" <sorah@...> 2011/01/27

RVM is not official, and makes problem more difficult. (magically

[#34913] Re: The ruby-lang.org downloads page should include RVM for OS X — Andrew Vos <andrew.vos@...> 2011/01/27

What do you mean by "official"? Also, what does it make more difficult? Do

[#34914] Re: The ruby-lang.org downloads page should include RVM for OS X — "Shota Fukumori (sora_h)" <sorah@...> 2011/01/27

return mail is gmail thing. I have same problem.

[#34970] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343][Open] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Vit Ondruch <redmine@...>

Bug #4343: Dir.glob does match files without extension

26 messages 2011/01/29
[#34975] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Nobuyoshi Nakada <redmine@...> 2011/01/29

Issue #4343 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.

[#34978] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Jeremy Bopp <jeremy@...> 2011/01/29

On 01/29/2011 10:19 AM, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#34979] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Vít Ondruch <v.ondruch@...> 2011/01/29

Dne 29.1.2011 17:27, Jeremy Bopp napsal(a):

[#34981] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Jeremy Bopp <jeremy@...> 2011/01/29

On 01/29/2011 10:33 AM, Vテュt Ondruch wrote:

[#34982] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Vít Ondruch <v.ondruch@...> 2011/01/29

Dne 29.1.2011 17:53, Jeremy Bopp napsal(a):

[ruby-core:34862] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4323] Proc#hash is Ill-Behaved

From: Charles Nutter <redmine@...>
Date: 2011-01-26 07:52:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #34862
Issue #4323 has been updated by Charles Nutter.


I'm not so sure I'd expect Proc#hash to be equal in these cases. Of course, I don't feel like Procs that simply have the same code and closure should be expected to be eql? either.

Each proc has its own scope and its own reference to closed-over containing scope. They can be used independently and have independent state of their own. Should they be eql? and have identical hash values?

What constitutes equivalent procs? Just the code it contains? That's obviously not enough, since they'll have access to different closed-over state. The code it contains and the lexical scope in which it is instantiated? That's not consistently supported either, for whatever reason:

~/projects/jruby ➔ ruby1.9 -e "x = ->{def foo; end}; y = ->{def foo; end}; p x.eql? y"
false

~/projects/jruby ➔ ruby1.9 -e "x = ->{:foo}; y = ->{:foo}; p x.eql? y"
true

~/projects/jruby ➔ ruby1.9 -e "x = ->{'foo'}; y = ->{'foo'}; p x.eql? y"
false

~/projects/jruby ➔ ruby1.9 -e "x = ->{if true; false; end}; y = ->{if true; false; end}; p x.eql? y"
true

~/projects/jruby ➔ ruby1.9 -e "x = ->{->{}}; y = ->{->{}}; p x.eql? y"
false

~/projects/jruby ➔ ruby1.9 -e "x = ->{5}; y = ->{5}; p x.eql? y"
true

~/projects/jruby ➔ ruby1.9 -e "x = ->{5.0}; y = ->{5.0}; p x.eql? y"
false

~/projects/jruby ➔ ruby1.9 -e "x = ->{[]}; y = ->{[]}; p x.eql? y"
true

~/projects/jruby ➔ ruby1.9 -e "x = ->{[5.0]}; y = ->{[5.0]}; p x.eql? y"
false

~/projects/jruby ➔ ruby1.9 -e "x = proc {}; y = lambda {}; p x.eql? y"
true

I only searched for a few minutes and came up with all these inconsistencies in 1.9's Proc#eql?. Obviously the containing scope and the code within the proc are not enough to determine eql?, and simple cases like ->{'foo'}, which should be easy to call "equivalent", make me believe it's not a good idea to trust Proc#eql? in any case anyway. And if you can't trust eql? I'm not sure how useful it is to trust hash.

Maybe someone more familiar with MRI can explain what criteria should be used to determine equivalence of two procs? I can't figure it out from the above examples.

There may also be evidence here that this is a very implementation-specific detail. In JRuby, when a given Proc has been JIT-compiled, should it still be eql? the same proc that has not been compiled? In the case of precompiling a Proc, so that the original AST no longer exists at runtime, what would be use to determine the proc is equivalent to some other proc?
----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/4323

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

In This Thread