[#44036] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6242][Open] Ruby should support lists — "shugo (Shugo Maeda)" <redmine@...>
[#44084] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6246][Open] 1.9.3-p125 intermittent segfault — "jshow (Jodi Showers)" <jodi@...>
[#44156] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6265][Open] Remove 'useless' 'concatenation' syntax — "rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)" <rr.rosas@...>
Hi,
(2012/04/09 14:19), Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#44163] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6266][Open] encoding related exception with recent integrated psych — "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>
[#44233] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6274][Open] Float addition incorrect — "swanboy (Michael Swan)" <swanyboy4@...>
[#44303] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6284][Open] Add composition for procs — "pabloh (Pablo Herrero)" <pablodherrero@...>
[#44329] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6287][Open] nested method should only be visible by nesting/enclosing method — "botp (bot pena)" <botpena@...>
[#44349] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Open] new queue / blocking queues — "tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)" <aaron@...>
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:58:12AM +0900, mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 06:25:59PM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:
[#44372] Possible merge error of code in Issue 4651 on to Ruby 1.9.3-p125? — "Blythe,Aaron" <ABLYTHE@...>
tl;dr I believe I have uncovered a merge error to ruby 1.9.3-p125 from Issu=
[#44431] [Backport93 - Backport #6314][Open] Backport r35374 and r35375 — "drbrain (Eric Hodel)" <drbrain@...7.net>
[#44432] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6315][Open] handler to trace output of each line of code executed — "ankopainting (Anko Painting)" <anko.com+ruby@...>
[#44533] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341][Open] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join — "rudolf (r stu3)" <redmine@...>
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp> wrote:
Hello,
(4/24/12 6:55 AM), Yusuke Endoh wrote:
> kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI) wrote:
[#44540] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6343][Open] Improved Fiber documentation — "andhapp (Anuj Dutta)" <anuj@...>
[#44612] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6354][Open] Remove escape (break/return/redo/next support) from class/module scope — "ko1 (Koichi Sasada)" <redmine@...>
[#44630] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6361][Open] Bitwise string operations — "MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)" <Martin.Bosslet@...>
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM, MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)
On Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 8:52 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
[#44636] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6364][Open] Segmentation fault happend when running test_cptr.rb — "raylinn@... (ray linn)" <raylinn@...>
[#44667] possible YAML bug in ruby 1.9.3p125? — Young Hyun <youngh@...>
YAML in ruby 1.9.3p125 seems to have a bug reading in YAML from older =
[#44686] [BUG] not a node 0x07 — ronald braswell <rpbraswell@...>
Running ruby 1.8.6 on Solaris 10.
2012/4/28 ronald braswell <rpbraswell@gmail.com>:
I have heard reports of this on 1.9.x. Do you know if this problem has
[#44704] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6373][Open] public #self — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>
Issue #6373 has been updated by Marc-Andre Lafortune.
[#44743] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6375][Open] Python notation for literal Hash — "alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)" <redmine@...>
[#44748] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6376][Open] Feature lookup and checking if feature is loaded — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:02 AM, mame (Yusuke Endoh) <mame@tsg.ne.jp> wrote:
[ruby-core:44041] Re: [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #6239] super Does Not Pass Modified Rest Args When Originally Empty
Hi,
It has not been considered as a bug. The old document described this
behavior. Ko1 asked me to allow behavioral change in 1.9, and I admit.
matz.
In message "Re: [ruby-core:44023] [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #6239] super Does Not Pass Modified Rest Args When Originally Empty"
on Sun, 1 Apr 2012 03:20:18 +0900, "marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)" <ruby-core@marc-andre.ca> writes:
|matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:
|> It's behavior change in 1.9, and we are not going to change the behavior in 1.8 (other than fixing bugs) any more.
|
|Oh, it is?
|
|So you mean that it was a known fact that there was an exceptional case with super and modified rest argument only when that rest argument was empty? And that it was a "feature"? Was there any rationale for that behavior?
|
|I'm not saying the bug must be fixed, as it can be easily circumvented using explicit arguments, but it definitely looks like a bug to me.