[#48745] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7267][Open] Dir.glob on Mac OS X returns unexpected string encodings for unicode file names — "kennygrant (Kenny Grant)" <kennygrant@...>

17 messages 2012/11/02

[#48773] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7269][Open] Refinement doesn't work if using locate after method — "ko1 (Koichi Sasada)" <redmine@...>

12 messages 2012/11/03

[#48847] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7274][Open] UnboundMethods should be bindable to any object that is_a?(owner of the UnboundMethod) — "rits (First Last)" <redmine@...>

21 messages 2012/11/04

[#48854] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7276][Open] TestFile#test_utime failure — "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>

14 messages 2012/11/04

[#48988] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7292][Open] Enumerable#to_h — "marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)" <ruby-core@...>

40 messages 2012/11/06

[#48997] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7297][Open] map_to alias for each_with_object — "nathan.f77 (Nathan Broadbent)" <nathan.f77@...>

19 messages 2012/11/06

[#49001] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7298][Open] Behavior of Enumerator.new different between 1.9.3 and 2.0.0 — "ayumin (Ayumu AIZAWA)" <ayumu.aizawa@...>

12 messages 2012/11/06

[#49018] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7299][Open] Ruby should not completely ignore blocks. — "marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)" <ruby-core@...>

13 messages 2012/11/07

[#49044] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7304][Open] Random test failures around test_autoclose_true_closed_by_finalizer — "luislavena (Luis Lavena)" <luislavena@...>

11 messages 2012/11/07

[#49196] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7322][Open] Add a new operator name #>< for bit-wise "exclusive or" — "alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)" <redmine@...>

18 messages 2012/11/10

[#49211] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7328][Open] Move ** operator precedence under unary + and - — "boris_stitnicky (Boris Stitnicky)" <boris@...>

20 messages 2012/11/11

[#49229] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7331][Open] Set the precedence of unary `-` equal to the precedence `-`, same for `+` — "alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)" <redmine@...>

17 messages 2012/11/11

[#49256] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7336][Open] Flexiable OPerator Precedence — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>

18 messages 2012/11/12

[#49354] review open pull requests on github — Zachary Scott <zachary@...>

Could we get a review on any open pull requests on github before the

12 messages 2012/11/15
[#49355] Re: review open pull requests on github — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...> 2012/11/15

2012/11/15 Zachary Scott <zachary@zacharyscott.net>:

[#49356] Re: review open pull requests on github — Zachary Scott <zachary@...> 2012/11/15

Ok, I was hoping one of the maintainers might want to.

[#49451] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7374][Open] File.expand_path resolving to first file/dir instead of absolute path — mdube@... (Martin Dubé) <mdube@...>

12 messages 2012/11/16

[#49463] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7375][Open] embedding libyaml in psych for Ruby 2.0 — "tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)" <aaron@...>

21 messages 2012/11/16
[#49494] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7375] embedding libyaml in psych for Ruby 2.0 — "vo.x (Vit Ondruch)" <v.ondruch@...> 2012/11/17

[#49467] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7377][Open] #indetical? as an alias for #equal? — "aef (Alexander E. Fischer)" <aef@...>

13 messages 2012/11/17

[#49558] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7395][Open] Negative numbers can't be primes by definition — "zzak (Zachary Scott)" <zachary@...>

10 messages 2012/11/19

[#49566] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7400][Open] Incorporate OpenSSL tests from JRuby. — "zzak (Zachary Scott)" <zachary@...>

11 messages 2012/11/19

[#49770] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7414][Open] Now that const_get supports "Foo::Bar" syntax, so should const_defined?. — "robertgleeson (Robert Gleeson)" <rob@...>

9 messages 2012/11/20

[#49950] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7427][Assigned] Update Rubygems — "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <mame@...>

17 messages 2012/11/24

[#50043] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7429][Open] Provide options for core collections to customize behavior — "headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@...>

10 messages 2012/11/24

[#50092] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7434][Open] Allow caller_locations and backtrace_locations to receive negative params — "sam.saffron (Sam Saffron)" <sam.saffron@...>

21 messages 2012/11/25

[#50094] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7436][Open] Allow for a "granularity" flag for backtrace_locations — "sam.saffron (Sam Saffron)" <sam.saffron@...>

11 messages 2012/11/25

[#50207] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7445][Open] strptime('%s %z') doesn't work — "felipec (Felipe Contreras)" <felipe.contreras@...>

19 messages 2012/11/27

[#50424] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7485][Open] ruby cannot build on mingw32 due to missing __sync_val_compare_and_swap — "drbrain (Eric Hodel)" <drbrain@...7.net>

15 messages 2012/11/30

[#50429] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7487][Open] Cutting through the issues with Refinements — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>

13 messages 2012/11/30

[ruby-core:50350] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #4085] Refinements and nested methods

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2012-11-30 01:16:09 UTC
List: ruby-core #50350
In message "Re: [ruby-core:50338] [ruby-trunk - Feature #4085] Refinements and nested methods"
    on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:05:15 +0900, "headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@headius.com> writes:

|>  Any more questions?
|
|Yes, lots! :)
|
|* Will we make more methods have special access to the caller's frame to support refinements? I'm speaking here of modifications to send, method reflection, to_proc, and so on. Of these, send sorta has access to caller frame, but it's unspecified (send :binding behaves differently on different impls). The reflection methods (method, instance_method, ...) and to_proc do not currently have access to caller's frame, and would have to be special-cased (and in JRuby that would force deoptimization of code that calls them to ensure we have a frame available).  I would argue that *none* of these methods should see the effects of refinements, because they are not defined within a refined file or scope. Making them see refinements extends refined effects down-stack in unpredictable ways.

From usability perspective, all retrospective methods e.g. respond_to?
methods etc. should reflect refinements. But for 2.0, I don't make
them check refinements, because of performance and complexity.  It
should be issue of future version.

|* Questions about about the scoping of refinements in seemingly unrelated refine blocks.
|
|* Performance expectations. Is performance being completely ignored here, or shall we set some goals for the implementation? I appreciate your desire to make Ruby more expressive, but that doesn't pay the bills at the end of the day if refined calls are 100x slower than regular calls. Some consideration of performance needs to be made up front. I would propose that unless refined calls can be made exactly the same speed as unrefined calls, they should not be included. We'd essentially be adding a file-scoped feature that hurts performance of all calls in that file. Expressivity doesn't trump slowing an entire system down because of a single call made at the top level of a file.

My expectation is that if you don't see "using" and "refine" in the
source code, the performance will not be affected, as much as
possible.  It's the reason I gave up refinements in the module bodies,
inherited modules/classes and module_eval.  I don't demamd refined
call to be exact same speed as unrefined ones, but I'd expect them not
significantly slower.  I'd accept them if they are 5-15% slower than
normal calls.

							matz.

In This Thread

Prev Next