[#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:35906] [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #4578] Fixnum.freeze not frozen?

From: Russell Bevers <rbevers@...>
Date: 2011-04-26 16:09:12 UTC
List: ruby-core #35906
Issue #4578 has been updated by Russell Bevers.


BTW, freeze & frozen? work fine on Fixnums in 1.9.x on my platform.  I agree that it seems unnecessary to correct in 1.8.x.  I can move to 1.9.
----------------------------------------
Bug #4578: Fixnum.freeze not frozen?
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4578

Author: Russell Bevers
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: 
Category: 
Target version: 
ruby -v: -


Using ruby 1.8.7 p334

a = 5; a.freeze

Expect:  true == a.frozen?
Result:  false == a.frozen?

I realize Fixnum is already immutable, however consider the following code:

class Demanding
    attr_reader :important

    def initialize(important)
        @important = important
        @important.freeze
    end
end

Demanding wants to be able to rely on identifier not changing over its lifespan.  I could make it demanding with some other mechanism such as:
 * Force important to be a particular type
 * Force important to respond_to? particular messages during initialization

These are all slippery and don't address the concern of mutability of important objects.  Freeze seemed like the obvious solution, but it's probably best for me to just take a deep copy of important for Demanding's own use.

In the meantime, I thought I should share that freeze is not working for all objects in Ruby 1.8.7 p334.


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

In This Thread

Prev Next