[#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:35833] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4590][Open] documentation is wrong for srand

From: redmine@...
Date: 2011-04-20 14:31:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #35833
Issue #4590 has been reported by Cezary Baginski.

----------------------------------------
Bug #4590: documentation is wrong for srand
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4590

Author: Cezary Baginski
Status: Open
Priority: Low
Assignee: 
Category: core
Target version: 
ruby -v: r31311


'ri srand' (in random.c) suggests that passing 0 generates a seed number:

 If <i>number</i> is omitted *or zero*, seeds the generator using a combination of (...)}

Currently, this isn't true (0 is a valid seed):
 >> srand(10); srand; srand
 => 290577086691033874500011807841900203857
 >> srand(10); srand(0); srand(0)
 => 0

 
It should be:

 If <i>number</i> is omitted, seeds the generator using a combination of (...)

I would normally create a patch for this, but wouldn't it be less surprising if srand accepted nil for generating the random seed?


Instead of code like:

 prev_seed = (seed == nil ? srand : srand(seed))

we would have:

 prev_seed = srand(seed)

Would this be a good idea?

Currently this fails, because an integer is expected:

 >> srand(nil)
 TypeError: can't convert nil into Integer




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

In This Thread

Prev Next