[#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:35723] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4541] Inconsistent Array.slice()

From: redmine@...
Date: 2011-04-12 12:10:30 UTC
List: ruby-core #35723
Issue #4541 has been updated by Jonas Pfenniger.


I don't see the advantage of having nil returned in any case since the empty array already expresses the "there is no object in that range".

Out of bound can be tested separately if necessary, but most of the cases you just want to get a range and a resulting array. Having also nil being returned means that you need some more code to test return.nil? && return.empty?
----------------------------------------
Bug #4541: Inconsistent Array.slice()
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4541

Author: Marcin Pietraszek
Status: Assigned
Priority: Normal
Assignee: Yukihiro Matsumoto
Category: 
Target version: 1.9.2
ruby -v: ruby 1.9.2p136 (2010-12-25 revision 30365) [x86_64-linux]


Array slice/[] method is a bit inconsistent. Is it just poorly documented "feature" or a bug? In API doc I can't find this behaviour mentioned as a "special case".

 def test_array_slice
    array = ['a', 'b', 'c']
    assert_equal nil, array[3]
    assert_eaual nil, array[4]
 
    assert_eaual [], array[3, 0] #
    assert_equal nil, array[4, 0] # [] expected (or both nils in array[3, 0] and array[4, 0])
 
    assert_equal ['c'], array[2..2]
    assert_equal [], array[3..3] #
    assert_equal nil, array[4..4] # [] expected (or both nils in array[3..3] and array[4..4])
 end

Same behaviour can be reproduced on ruby 1.8.7 (2010-12-23 patchlevel 330) [x86_64-linux].


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

In This Thread

Prev Next