[#35446] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4477][Open] Kernel:exec and backtick (`) don't work for certain system commands — Joachim Wuttke <j.wuttke@...>

10 messages 2011/03/07

[#35476] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4489][Open] [PATCH] Encodings with /-(unix|dos|mac)\Z/ — "James M. Lawrence" <quixoticsycophant@...>

20 messages 2011/03/10

[#35552] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4523][Open] Kernel#require to return the path of the loaded file — Alex Young <alex@...>

14 messages 2011/03/24

[#35565] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531][Open] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>

33 messages 2011/03/28

[#35566] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4532][Open] [PATCH] add IO#pread and IO#pwrite methods — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>

12 messages 2011/03/28

[#35586] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4538][Open] [PATCH (cleanup)] avoid unnecessary select() calls before doing I/O — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>

9 messages 2011/03/29

[ruby-core:35410] Re: Why are hash keys sometimes duped?

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2011-03-02 03:25:57 UTC
List: ruby-core #35410
Hi,

In message "Re: [ruby-core:35409] Re: Why are hash keys sometimes duped?"
    on Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:38:01 +0900, Aaron Patterson <aaron@tenderlovemaking.com> writes:

|> Eric, your guess is correct.  It's a compromise between mutable
|> strings and rehashing.
|
|This makes me wonder, is rehashing more expensive than allocating a new
|string?
|
|Are string mutations so common that allocating a new string object is
|cheaper?

It's not the matter of cost, data lost would cause huge damage on the
mind of a programmer (i.e. me), even if you can regain access by
rehashing.

We might still have room to optimize Hash implementation though.

							matz.

In This Thread