[#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:35724] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4553] Add Set#pick and Set#pop

From: redmine@...
Date: 2011-04-12 12:16:14 UTC
List: ruby-core #35724
Issue #4553 has been updated by Jonas Pfenniger.


#pop is often associated to stack operations, which implies an order. Unless a better name is found, isn't set.delete(set.take) enough ?

#take can be an alias of #first but I'm not sure if Enumerable should be included in Set in the first place. In my POV, Enumerable is for elements that have a particular order.

----------------------------------------
Feature #4553: Add Set#pick and Set#pop
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4553

Author: Michael Edgar
Status: Open
Priority: Low
Assignee: 
Category: 
Target version: 


A very common operation on sets is to take an arbitrary element from them at O(1) cost. I know typically
it's suggested that library additions go out as a gem to see community review. However, to me it seems
to be a glaring omission to lack such an operation on a built-in, fundamental data structure, so I've
gone straight to the bug tracker.

I wasn't too sure which method names to use as I've often heard "take" in lieu of "pop," so I just used the
names Wikipedia uses. Consider them flexible. "Pick" selects an arbitrary element, and "pop" selects and
deletes it.

I've provided a very simple patch that implements the necessary behavior. Thoughts?


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

In This Thread

Prev Next