[#41431] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5694][Open] Proc#arity doesn't take optional arguments into account. — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...>
Maybe we can add a new arity_range method that does this?
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> wrote:
You could probably extract the information from #parameters, yeah.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeahit would be nice to be able to do:
[#41435] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5695][Open] CoffeeScript "is" and "isnt" keywords — Suraj Kurapati <sunaku@...>
[#41456] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5700][Open] fork {} segfaults during VM cleanup when run inside Fiber — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[#41478] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5707][Open] temporary file creation without finalizer and delegate. — Akira Tanaka <akr@...>
Akira Tanaka <akr@fsij.org> wrote:
2011/12/5 Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>:
[#41496] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5714][Open] Unexpected error of STDIN#read with non-ascii input on Windows XP — Heesob Park <phasis@...>
Hello,
Hello,
Hello,
[#41511] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5719][Open] Hash::[] can't handle 100000+ args — Nick Quaranto <nick@...>
[#41541] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5726][Open] Process::EXIT_SUCCESS and Process::EXIT_FAILURE — Akira Tanaka <akr@...>
[#41557] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5730][Open] Optinal block parameters assigns wrong — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
2011/12/9 Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>:
Hi,
Hi Matz,
[#41581] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5737][Open] WEBrick doesn't support keep alive connections for 204 and 304 responses — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>
[#41586] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5741][Open] Secure Erasure of Passwords — Martin Bosslet <Martin.Bosslet@...>
[#41592] My bug evaluation criteria — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@...>
I don't think there is an official way to judge a bug, but for me it
[#41594] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5746][Open] Proc#curry too strict about lambda's arity. — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...>
[#41618] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5754][Open] Double require bug in 1.9.3 — Evan Phoenix <evan@...>
[#41630] redmine.ruby-lang.org -> bugs.ruby-lang.org — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...>
Hello,
[#41634] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5759][Open] flatten calls to_ary on everything — Thomas Sawyer <transfire@...>
[#41656] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5763][Open] sprintf not throwing error for wrong number of arguments — NagaChaitanya Vellanki <me@...>
[#41662] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5765][Open] [PATCH] modernize Timeout usage in net/{http,pop,smtp,telnet} — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[#41668] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5766][Open] Hash.each_with_object should behave differently when block's arity is 3 — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>
[#41672] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5767][Open] Cache expanded_load_path to reduce startup time — Yura Sokolov <funny.falcon@...>
[#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
Em 15-12-2011 19:23, Gary Wright escreveu:
On Dec 15, 2011, at 7:39 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
Em 19-12-2011 19:38, Eric Hodel escreveu:
On Dec 19, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
Em 19-12-2011 23:35, Eric Hodel escreveu:
[#41691] Ruby IRC Presence Problem — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Hi,
[#41717] Feature : optional argument in File.join — Michel Demazure <michel@...>
In Windows, when using File.join, one often ends with a path containing
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Michel Demazure <michel@demazure.com> wrote:
Luis Lavena wrote in post #1037331:
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 02:12, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 08:17, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Nikolai Weibull wrote in post #1037488:
[#41721] Ruby and oniguruma relation. — V咜 Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>
Hi everybody,
[#41725] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5778][Open] Allow WEBrick::HTTPResponse to send IO-duck-typed bodies — Alex Young <alex@...>
[#41728] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5781][Open] Query attributes (attribute methods ending in `?` mark) — Thomas Sawyer <transfire@...>
[#41774] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5788][Open] Thread#at_exit — Masaki Matsushita <glass.saga@...>
[#41780] [Backport93 - Backport #5793][Open] Please backport r33662, r33666 — Jon Forums <redmine@...>
[#41787] Breaking while loading — Nikolai Weibull <now@...>
Hi!
[#41797] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5805][Open] object_hexid — Thomas Sawyer <transfire@...>
[#41799] Best way to separate implementation specific code? — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
Hello,
2011/12/24 Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com>:
Hello,
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:51 PM, U.Nakamura <usa@garbagecollect.jp> wrote:
Hello,
Hello,
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#41812] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5809][Open] Benchmark#bm: remove the label_width parameter — Benoit Daloze <redmine@...>
[#41841] YAML has become very slow under 1.9 — j.wuttke <j.wuttke@...>
The simple script
[#41848] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5826][Open] When the RUBY API_VERSION will be increased? — Ayumu AIZAWA <ayumu.aizawa@...>
[ruby-core:41708] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #5694] Proc#arity doesn't take optional arguments into account.
Hi, On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote: > Hi, > > In message "Re: [ruby-core:41600] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5694] Proc#arity doesn't take optional arguments into account." > n Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:30:26 +0900, Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@marc-andre.ca> writes: > > |Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > |> We are not going to add incompatible changes to trunk, ... > | > |Could you please explain to me what difference you see between an "incompatible change" and any "bug fix"? > > Good point. t's whether the change makes difference from intention > of the original designer. ... So do we agree that my patch is not an incompatible change? >irst I thought to keep the original arity > behavior, but after investigating the behavior, both Method#arity and > Proc#arity have weird corner cases. Apart from the one I'm pointing out (which is only present in Ruby 1.9), what other corner cases are there? In particular, is there any corner case in the 1.8 line? > My idea for new behavior is: > > arity ignores all optional arguments > arity returns -n-1 if there's rest argument > where n is number of mandatory arguments > > Any opinion? Can you explain what would be gained by this new behavior, i.e. how is this change more helpful than the current behavior? Also, can you explain why you consider that breaking the previous behavior would be a good idea? A quick check for uses of `arity` in Rails reveal that the typical use looks like "does this method use only 1 parameter or can it use more than that?" Among other things, this change could break many Rails app. Moreover, Rails and any other gem using `arity` would have to jump through hoops to maintain a compatible version with Ruby 1.8.7 (which doesn't have the `parameters` method) and Ruby 1.9.2+. Finally, assuming you decide to go forward with this feature change for Ruby 2.0, shouldn't the 1.9 line still be fixed with my patch to be consistent? Thanks