[#5322] O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>

I just did some benchmarks on push, pop, shift, and unshift

24 messages 2005/07/01
[#5338] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/02

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5348] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/02

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5357] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/03

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5359] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/03

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5361] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/03

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5362] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/03

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5365] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/07/04

Hi,

[#5367] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/04

--- Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#5368] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/07/04

Hi,

[#5372] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/07/04

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5420] Sydney Developer Preview 1 released — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...>

Sydney, an experimental ruby interpreter, has been released!

15 messages 2005/07/11
[#5424] Re: [ANN] Sydney Developer Preview 1 released — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2005/07/12

Thanks everyone for the feedback so far!

Re: Object#=~

From: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Date: 2005-07-06 18:47:40 UTC
List: ruby-core #5408
On 06 Jul 2005, at 11:15, Eric Mahurin wrote:

> --- Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
>>> true  - positive pattern match result
>>> nil   - negative pattern match result
>>> false - don't know (no match was done)
>>
>> daz's suggestion simply defines a convention for existing  
>> behavior, which feels much better to me.
>
> both are changes and both could cause compatibility issues.  I
> think either way causing a compatibility issue would be rare,
> although I have to admit the unknown==nil/mismatch==false would
> probably be more likely.  unknown==nil and mismatch==false
> seems more natural and if a change is going to be made it might
> as well be done right.

daz describes existing behavior, there are no changes other than  
adding "this is the what the return value of #=~ means" somewhere in  
Ruby's documentation.

$ /usr/bin/ruby182 -v test.rb
ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [powerpc-darwin8.0]
true  - positive pattern match result
'abc' =~ /b/ # => 1
nil   - negative pattern match result
'abc' =~ /z/ # => nil
false - don't know (no match was done)
5 =~ /b/     # => false

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E  7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04


In This Thread