[#41431] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5694][Open] Proc#arity doesn't take optional arguments into account. — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...>

27 messages 2011/12/01
[#41442] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5694] Proc#arity doesn't take optional arguments into account. — Thomas Sawyer <transfire@...> 2011/12/01

[#41443] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #5694] Proc#arity doesn't take optional arguments into account. — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...> 2011/12/01

Maybe we can add a new arity_range method that does this?

[#41496] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5714][Open] Unexpected error of STDIN#read with non-ascii input on Windows XP — Heesob Park <phasis@...>

22 messages 2011/12/06

[#41511] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5719][Open] Hash::[] can't handle 100000+ args — Nick Quaranto <nick@...>

13 messages 2011/12/07

[#41557] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5730][Open] Optinal block parameters assigns wrong — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

14 messages 2011/12/08

[#41586] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5741][Open] Secure Erasure of Passwords — Martin Bosslet <Martin.Bosslet@...>

17 messages 2011/12/10

[#41672] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5767][Open] Cache expanded_load_path to reduce startup time — Yura Sokolov <funny.falcon@...>

13 messages 2011/12/15

[#41681] Documentation of the language itself (syntax, meanings, etc) — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>

Since Ruby is built on top of simple concepts, most of the documentation

23 messages 2011/12/15
[#41683] Re: Documentation of the language itself (syntax, meanings, etc) — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2011/12/15

[#41686] Re: Documentation of the language itself (syntax, meanings, etc) — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...> 2011/12/16

Em 15-12-2011 19:23, Gary Wright escreveu:

[#41717] Feature : optional argument in File.join — Michel Demazure <michel@...>

In Windows, when using File.join, one often ends with a path containing

13 messages 2011/12/19
[#41719] Re: Feature : optional argument in File.join — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2011/12/19

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Michel Demazure <michel@demazure.com> wrote:

[#41720] Re: Feature : optional argument in File.join — Michel Demazure <michel@...> 2011/12/19

Luis Lavena wrote in post #1037331:

[#41728] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5781][Open] Query attributes (attribute methods ending in `?` mark) — Thomas Sawyer <transfire@...>

15 messages 2011/12/19

[#41799] Best way to separate implementation specific code? — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>

Hello,

15 messages 2011/12/24
[#41800] Re: Best way to separate implementation specific code? — KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...> 2011/12/24

2011/12/24 Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com>:

[#41811] Re: Best way to separate implementation specific code? — "U.Nakamura" <usa@...> 2011/12/26

Hello,

[#41817] Re: Best way to separate implementation specific code? — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2011/12/26

On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:51 PM, U.Nakamura <usa@garbagecollect.jp> wrote:

[#41812] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5809][Open] Benchmark#bm: remove the label_width parameter — Benoit Daloze <redmine@...>

11 messages 2011/12/26

[ruby-core:41544] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5614] Proc#source_location & #inspect shows wrong line number when chained

From: Yasushi ANDO <andyjpn@...>
Date: 2011-12-08 06:27:24 UTC
List: ruby-core #41544
Issue #5614 has been updated by Yasushi ANDO.


It may not a bug but a specification. A block returns the number of a line in which the block is defined for its "source_location." When you use procs instead of blocks, it returns the values you expected.

Code:
  1 require 'pp'
  2 class Foo
  3   def bar(&blk)
  4     pp blk.source_location
  5     self
  6   end
  7 end
  8 
  9 Foo.new.bar(&proc{
 10   puts 'b1'
 11 }).bar(&proc{
 12   puts 'b2'
 13 })

Result:
$ ruby procs.rb 
["procs.rb", 9]
["procs.rb", 11]
----------------------------------------
Bug #5614: Proc#source_location & #inspect shows wrong line number when chained
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5614

Author: TzeYang Ng
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: 
Category: core
Target version: 1.9.2
ruby -v: ruby 1.9.2p290 (2011-07-09 revision 32553) [x86_64-linux]


When procs are chained, the line number for each proc is mis-calculated to be the 1st proc's line-number.

Eg.

    class Foo
      def bar(&blk)
        pp blk.source_location
        self
      end
    end

    Foo.new.bar do
      puts 'b1'
    end.bar do
      puts 'b2'
    end

The 1st & 2nd procs show the same line number, when they shouldn't.

Though i listed the target version as 1.9.2, this behaviour is consistent for all versions of mri.



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

In This Thread

Prev Next