[#35631] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4558][Open] TestSocket#test_closed_read fails after r31230 — Tomoyuki Chikanaga <redmine@...>

23 messages 2011/04/06

[#35632] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4559][Open] Proc#== does not match the documented behaviour — Adam Prescott <redmine@...>

13 messages 2011/04/06

[#35637] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4561][Open] 1.9.2 requires parentheses around argument of method call in an array, where 1.8.7 did not — Dave Schweisguth <redmine@...>

9 messages 2011/04/07

[#35666] caching of the ancestor chain — Xavier Noria <fxn@...>

Why does Ruby cache the ancestors chain? I mean, not why the implementation implies that, but why it works that way conceptually.

9 messages 2011/04/09

[#35734] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4574][Open] Numeric#within — redmine@...

16 messages 2011/04/13

[#35753] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576][Open] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — redmine@...

61 messages 2011/04/14
[#39566] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...> 2011/09/15

[#39590] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...> 2011/09/16

[#39593] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2011/09/16

2011/9/17 Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@marc-andre.ca>:

[#39608] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Masahiro TANAKA <masa16.tanaka@...> 2011/09/17

I have not been watching ruby-core, but let me give a comment for this issue.

[#35765] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4579][Open] SecureRandom + OpenSSL may repeat with fork — redmine@...

27 messages 2011/04/15

[#35866] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4603][Open] lib/csv.rb: when the :encoding parameter is not provided, the encoding of CSV data is treated as ASCII-8BIT — yu nobuoka <nobuoka@...>

13 messages 2011/04/24

[#35879] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4610][Open] Proc#curry behavior is inconsistent with lambdas containing default argument values — Joshua Ballanco <jballanc@...>

11 messages 2011/04/25

[#35883] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4611][Open] [BUG] Segementation fault reported — Deryl Doucette <me@...>

15 messages 2011/04/25

[#35895] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4614][Open] [RFC/PATCH] thread_pthread.c: lower RUBY_STACK_MIN_LIMIT to 64K — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>

10 messages 2011/04/25

[ruby-core:35599] Proc#== behaviour on 1.8.7 and 1.9.2

From: Adam Prescott <adam@...>
Date: 2011-04-01 23:39:46 UTC
List: ruby-core #35599
I've encountered a problem when using Proc#== (with both lambdas and
procs) in my code, where the result does not match up with what the
documentation says. 1.9.2 differs from 1.8.7 in result and in the
source code, so that suggests attention has been given to the method,
at least. It was suggested that ruby-core was the place to go for
this.

Here's a paste of the problem, with full RUBY_DESCRIPTIONs:
https://gist.github.com/899026

I've included lambda, proc, and Proc.new variants just for completion,
even though I realise proc is an alias for lambda or Proc.new,
depending.

At the very least, perhaps someone could explain why this is by
design, if it's not a bug. Apologies if there's an open issue for this
on redmine; the site is currently not working for me (again), and I
couldn't find anything online mentioning this.

In This Thread

Prev Next