[#39810] 2.0 feature questionnaire — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

I made a questionnaire "What do you want to introduce in 2.0?" in my

59 messages 2011/10/01
[#39822] Re: 2.0 feature questionnaire — Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@...> 2011/10/02

2011/10/1 SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net>:

[#39827] Re: 2.0 feature questionnaire — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/10/02

Hi,

[#40324] Re: 2.0 feature questionnaire — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...> 2011/10/25

2011/10/1 SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net>:

[#39823] Discussion results — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

Hi,

34 messages 2011/10/02
[#39840] Re: Discussion results — Intransition <transfire@...> 2011/10/02

I did not have the fortune of attending the discussion, but I would

[#39844] Re: Discussion results — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/10/02

Hi,

[#39851] Re: Discussion results (here documents with indents) — "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@...> 2011/10/03

Hello Matz,

[#39862] Re: Discussion results (here documents with indents) — Yusuke Endoh <mame@...> 2011/10/03

Hello,

[#39874] Re: Discussion results (here documents with indents) — Trans <transfire@...> 2011/10/03

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp> wrote:

[#39915] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5400][Open] Remove flip-flops in 2.0 — Magnus Holm <judofyr@...>

29 messages 2011/10/04

[#39957] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5407][Open] Cannot build ruby-1.9.3-rc1 with TDM-GCC 4.6.1 on Windows XP SP3 — Heesob Park <phasis@...>

11 messages 2011/10/05

[#39993] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #2348] RBTree Should be Added to the Standard Library — David Graham <david.malcom.graham@...>

10 messages 2011/10/06

[#40037] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5422][Open] File.fnmatch != Dir.glob # {no,sets} — Suraj Kurapati <sunaku@...>

14 messages 2011/10/07

[#40073] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5427][Open] Not complex patch to improve `require` time (load.c) — Yura Sokolov <funny.falcon@...>

31 messages 2011/10/09

[#40090] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5433][Open] PTY.spawn Kernel panic on macos lion — Gamaliel Toro <argami@...>

14 messages 2011/10/10

[#40188] [Ruby 2.0 - Feature #5454] keyword arguments — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

16 messages 2011/10/17
[#40189] Re: [Ruby 2.0 - Feature #5454] keyword arguments — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2011/10/17

This looks very interesting=21 Would someone be willing to translate to e=

[#40191] Re: [Ruby 2.0 - Feature #5454] keyword arguments — Yutaka Hara <yutaka.hara@...> 2011/10/18

Hi,

[#40192] Re: [Ruby 2.0 - Feature #5454] keyword arguments — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/10/18

Hi,

[#40259] Counseling — Perry Smith <pedzsan@...>

Ruby and I are back in counseling... Its always the same thing with =

21 messages 2011/10/21
[#40263] Re: Counseling — "Haase, Konstantin" <Konstantin.Haase@...> 2011/10/21

What's your $LC_CTYPE? What OS are you on?

[#40264] Re: Counseling — Gon軋lo Silva <goncalossilva@...> 2011/10/21

Hi all,

[#40266] Re: Counseling — Bill Kelly <billk@...> 2011/10/21

Gon軋lo Silva wrote:

[#40271] Can rubygems save us from "binary-compatibility hell"? — Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>

Hello, rubygems developers --

17 messages 2011/10/22

[#40290] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5474][Assigned] keyword argument — Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>

36 messages 2011/10/23
[#40298] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #5474][Assigned] keyword argument — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/10/24

Hi,

[#40414] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #5474][Assigned] keyword argument — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...> 2011/10/26

More refinement below. I think we're on a good path here.

[#40416] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #5474][Assigned] keyword argument — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/10/26

Hi,

[#40418] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #5474][Assigned] keyword argument — Joshua Ballanco <jballanc@...> 2011/10/26

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>wrote:

[#40425] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #5474][Assigned] keyword argument — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/10/27

Hi,

[#40311] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5478][Open] import Set into core, add syntax — Konstantin Haase <Konstantin.Haase@...>

33 messages 2011/10/24

[#40312] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5479][Open] import StringIO into core, add String#to_io — Konstantin Haase <Konstantin.Haase@...>

9 messages 2011/10/24

[#40316] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5481][Open] Gemifying Ruby standard library — Hiroshi Nakamura <nakahiro@...>

86 messages 2011/10/24
[#40334] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5481] Gemifying Ruby standard library — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...> 2011/10/25

[#40322] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5482][Open] Rubinius as basis for Ruby 2.0 — Thomas Sawyer <transfire@...>

19 messages 2011/10/25

[#40356] JIT development for MRI — Carter Cheng <cartercheng@...>

Hello,

25 messages 2011/10/25
[#40390] Re: JIT development for MRI — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2011/10/26

Hi,

[#40394] Re: JIT development for MRI — Carter Cheng <cartercheng@...> 2011/10/26

Dear Koichi SASADA,

[#40395] Re: JIT development for MRI — Carter Cheng <cartercheng@...> 2011/10/26

I noticed that you used context threading in YARV. Do you have some analysis

[#40417] Re: JIT development for MRI — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2011/10/26

Thanks for reference.

[#40423] Re: JIT development for MRI — Carter Cheng <cartercheng@...> 2011/10/26

Thanks Koichi.

[#40412] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5486][Open] rb_stat() doesn’t respect input encoding — Nikolai Weibull <now@...>

15 messages 2011/10/26

[#40462] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5492][Open] MinGW Installation with Ruby 1.9.3rc1 Broken — Charlie Savage <cfis@...>

14 messages 2011/10/27

[#40573] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5530][Open] SEEK_SET malfunctions when used with 'append' File.open mode — "Joshua J. Drake" <ruby-lang.jdrake@...>

17 messages 2011/10/31

[#40586] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5531][Open] deep_value for dealing with nested hashes — Kyle Peyton <kylepeyton@...>

19 messages 2011/10/31

[ruby-core:40408] Re: 2.0 feature questionnaire

From: Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>
Date: 2011-10-26 07:39:37 UTC
List: ruby-core #40408
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Rocky Bernstein <rockyb@rubyforge.org> wro=
te:
> First, let me say that I misunderstood exactly what was being proposed.
>
> But that said, I think we are quickly moving into glib territory here. I'=
m
> not sure what in smalltalk we are comparing "binding" to and what other
> mechanisms there are in smalltalk that do similar things; nor am I sure w=
hat
> the expectations of "any smalltalk debugger" are.
>
> I talked about access to locals, but I can't think of a debugger that has
> access to locals that doesn't also have the ability to change those local=
s.
> =C2=A0 The scheme-like proposal mentioned in Josh's talk might not provid=
e for
> the the kind of flexibility that current Ruby debuggers have.=C2=A0 In hi=
s talk,
> Josh asked for an example of a use where one might take a binding and mod=
ify
> variables not mentioned in the closure. It is not clear to me that betwee=
n
> debugger and user interaction it might not just do that. (I too find it h=
ard
> to "reason" about the dynamic case.)

As you probably know, I'm still of the opinion that debug time and
runtime have completely different characteristics. Expecting that
debug-time binding access (frame access, local variable modification,
etc) should be available at normal runtime is unreasonable...it's not
possible to do this without killing many, many optimizations. You and
I discussed that those optimizations could still be active and
debuggers would just lose functionality...but I'm not sure I see that
being useful. If JRuby eliminated all local variables for a given
method and the debugger was unable to see them, what use is the local
variable feature of the debugger? I'm still of the opinion that
debugging will almost always be most useful in a mode that limits
optimizations normally invisible to the user, so we're talking about a
completely different mode of execution where full-system binding
access may be just fine.

In any case, this is a bit off topic. All I want is the ability to be
able to statically inspect a method and the blocks it contains and
know exactly how much of the enclosing state it needs access to. That
opens up a broad range of optimizations, like reducing the overhead of
accessing closed-over variables.

And of course there's the encapsulation problems :)

- Charlie

In This Thread