[#43120] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6124][Open] What is the purpose of "fake" gems in Ruby — Vit Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>

27 messages 2012/03/07

[#43142] Questions about thread performance (with benchmark included) — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>

A while ago I've written an article entitled "How Nokogiri and JRuby

10 messages 2012/03/08

[#43148] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6126][Open] Introduce yes/no constants aliases for true/false — Egor Homakov <homakov@...>

16 messages 2012/03/09

[#43238] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6130][Open] inspect using to_s is pain — Thomas Sawyer <transfire@...>

21 messages 2012/03/11

[#43313] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6150][Open] add Enumerable#grep_v — Suraj Kurapati <sunaku@...>

17 messages 2012/03/15

[#43325] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6154][Open] Eliminate extending WaitReadable/Writable at runtime — Charles Nutter <headius@...>

25 messages 2012/03/16

[#43334] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6155][Open] Enumerable::Lazy#flat_map raises an exception when an element does not respond to #each — Dan Kubb <dan.kubb@...>

9 messages 2012/03/16

[#43370] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6166][Open] Enumerator::Lazy#pinch — Thomas Sawyer <transfire@...>

15 messages 2012/03/17

[#43373] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6168][Open] Segfault in OpenSSL bindings — Nguma Abojo <git.email.address@...>

14 messages 2012/03/17

[#43454] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6174][Open] Fix collision of ConditionVariable#wait timeout and #signal (+ other cosmetic changes) — "funny_falcon (Yura Sokolov)" <funny.falcon@...>

10 messages 2012/03/18

[#43497] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6179][Open] File::pos broken in Windows 1.9.3p125 — "jmthomas (Jason Thomas)" <jmthomas@...>

24 messages 2012/03/20

[#43502] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6180][Open] to_b for converting objects to a boolean value — "AaronLasseigne (Aaron Lasseigne)" <aaron.lasseigne@...>

17 messages 2012/03/20

[#43529] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6183][Open] Enumerator::Lazy performance issue — "gregolsen (Innokenty Mikhailov)" <anotheroneman@...>

36 messages 2012/03/21

[#43543] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6184][Open] [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.9.3p165 (2012-03-18 revision 35078) [x86_64-darwin11.3.0] — "Gebor (Pierre-Henry Frohring)" <frohring.pierrehenry@...>

8 messages 2012/03/21

[#43672] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6201][Open] do_something then return :special_case (include "then" operator) — "rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)" <rr.rosas@...>

12 messages 2012/03/26

[#43678] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6203][Open] Array#values_at does not handle ranges with end index past the end of the array — "ferrous26 (Mark Rada)" <markrada26@...>

15 messages 2012/03/26

[#43794] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6216][Open] SystemStackError backtraces should not be reduced to one line — "postmodern (Hal Brodigan)" <postmodern.mod3@...>

15 messages 2012/03/28

[#43814] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6219][Open] Return value of Hash#store — "MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)" <Martin.Bosslet@...>

20 messages 2012/03/28

[#43858] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6222][Open] Use ++ to connect statements — "gcao (Guoliang Cao)" <gcao99@...>

12 messages 2012/03/29

[#43904] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6225][Open] Hash#+ — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>

36 messages 2012/03/29

[#43951] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6228][Open] [mingw] Errno::EBADF in ruby/test_io.rb on ruby_1_9_3 — "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>

28 messages 2012/03/30

[#43996] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6236][Open] WEBrick::HTTPServer swallows Exception — "regularfry (Alex Young)" <alex@...>

13 messages 2012/03/31

[ruby-core:43071] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6070] The scope of for loop variables

From: Shugo Maeda <shugo@...>
Date: 2012-03-05 07:10:40 UTC
List: ruby-core #43071
Hello,

2012/3/1 George Koehler <xkernigh@netscape.net>:
> This patch (for_loop_scope_fix_0224.diff) introduces a confusing change. With current Ruby, for loops and loops never have local variables. With this patch, for loops have local variables, but while loops never have them. Here is a brief example.

Yes, it is what I have expected.

> With for_loop_scope_fix_0224.diff, it is difficult to understand why for loops can restrict scope of variables, but while loops never do so.

Without the patch, the behavior of for loops is consistent with that
of while loops; however, it is inconsistent with that of blocks.  By
contrast with the patch, the behavior of for loops is consistent with
that of blocks; however, it is inconsistent with that of while loops.
So there's a trade-off between these two design choices.

For loops are syntactically close to while loops, but for loops are
semantically more close to blocks, so I think it's better to make for
loops consistent with blocks.

-- 
Shugo Maeda

In This Thread