[#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:35751] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4574] Numeric#within

From: Nikolai Weibull <now@...>
Date: 2011-04-14 11:40:28 UTC
List: ruby-core #35751
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:49,  <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

> I think Numeric#within is perhaps less intuitive than something like Range#bound or Range#trim. It feels more natural to have it be a method on Range. I like Range#clamp but it might not be so obvious that restricts the argument to within the range; then again, (2..5).restrict(6) might lack some aesthetic appeal.

In my mind, Numeric#clamp is the right choice:

6.clamp(2..5) # ⇒ 5
1.clamp(2, 5) # ⇒ 2

class TimeColor
  def initialize(time)
    @red = (time * 1.5).clamp(0..0.25)
    @green = (time * 1.2).clamp(0..0.25)
    @blue = time.clamp(0..0.35)
  end
end

class TimeColor2
  def initialize(time)
    @red = (0..0.25).clamp(time * 1.5)
    @green = (0..0.25).clamp(time * 1.2)
    @blue = (0..0.35).clamp(time)
  end
end

TimeColor concentrates on the fact that the values are determined by
time, which is then clamped to specific ranges, whereas TimeColor2
concentrates on the fact that the values are clamped to specific
ranges, and only second that those values depend on time.

Each alternative has its merits, based on what you actually want to highlight.

In This Thread