[#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:41814] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #5474][Assigned] keyword argument

From: Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
Date: 2011-12-26 14:28:36 UTC
List: ruby-core #41814
Hello, Marc-Andre

2011/12/22, Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@marc-andre.ca>:
> While having fun testing your patch, I encountered an issue with more
> than 2 rest arguments:
>
>     def foo(*rest, b: 0, **options)
>       [rest, options]
>     end
>
>     foo(1, 2, bar: 0)  # => [[1, 2], {bar: 0}]  OK
>     foo(1, 2, 3, bar: 0)  # => [[1, 2, {bar: 0}], {bar: 0}]  Not OK

Good catch!  The commits I've done now include a fix for this.


> On 30 October 2011 11:10, Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp> wrote:
>> Currently, my patch allows ** only when there are one or more
>> keyword arguments.
>>
>> This is because I didn't think of any use case.
>> In addition, I wanted to simplify the implementation of parser.
>> (Unfortunately, adding a new argument type requries *doubling*
>>  the parser rules to avoid yacc's conflict)
>> Do you think we need it?
>
> I'm worried about cases where one doesn't use named arguments directly
> but wants to pass them on to another method.

Indeed.  I've missed delegate.


>> I didn't implement caller's **.
>> I wonder if we need it or not.  Is "other(a, h)" not enough?
>
> I think one reason to have it is to avoid calling Hash#merge when
> combining options, like in the above examples.
>
> Instead of
>
>     def foo(bar: 42, **options)
>         baz(extra_option: 1, **options)
>     end
>
> Currently, one has to do:
>
>     def foo(bar: 42, **options)
>         baz(options.merge(extra_option: 1))
>     end

Oh yeah, I understand the use case.

I'll work for these two, after matz shows his opinion for
your new alternative syntax.  Thanks!

-- 
Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp>

In This Thread