[#53893] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8204][Open] ObjectSpace.each_object(Bignum) can generate Bignums that are to small to be Bignums — "Hanmac (Hans Mackowiak)" <hanmac@...>
[#53914] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8206][Open] Should Ruby core implement String#blank? — "sam.saffron (Sam Saffron)" <sam.saffron@...>
[#53922] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8208][Open] Raise cached exceptions for nonblocking IO to avoid allocation/stack-copying costs — "headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@...>
"headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@headius.com> wrote:
[#53950] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8211][Open] Performance regression of method calls — "dunric (David Unric)" <dunric29a@...>
[#53974] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8215][Open] Support accessing Fiber-locals and backtraces for a Fiber — "halorgium (Tim Carey-Smith)" <ruby-lang-bugs@...>
[#54023] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8223][Open] Make Matrix more omnivorous. — "boris_stitnicky (Boris Stitnicky)" <boris@...>
[#54031] Question about r39944 — Aaron Patterson <tenderlove@...>
Hi,
Even if test directory should be on the load path on test-all, you should
[#54095] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8237][Open] Logical method chaining via inferred receiver — "wardrop (Tom Wardrop)" <tom@...>
[#54175] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8254][Open] Ruby segfaults on second SystemStackError from parser — "charliesome (Charlie Somerville)" <charlie@...>
[#54185] [CommonRuby - Feature #8257][Open] Exception#cause to carry originating exception along with new one — "headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@...>
(2013/04/12 1:40), headius (Charles Nutter) wrote:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:19 PM, SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#54196] Encouraging use of CommonRuby — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>
I think we need to do more to encourage the use of the CommonRuby
Hi,
As far as I understand, what is CommonRuby and the process over CommonRuby
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:25 PM, NARUSE, Yui <naruse@airemix.jp> wrote:
(2013/04/12 16:40), Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:08 AM, NARUSE, Yui <naruse@airemix.jp> wrote:
[#54201] Has ObjectSpace changed recently? — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I just noticed that in 2.0, I see this:
[#54207] [CommonRuby - Feature #8258][Open] Dir#escape_glob — "steveklabnik (Steve Klabnik)" <steve@...>
[#54218] [CommonRuby - Feature #8259][Open] Atomic attributes accessors — "funny_falcon (Yura Sokolov)" <funny.falcon@...>
Issue #8259 has been updated by Charles Nutter.
I'm not sure if setting the attribute on the ivar is a good way to go.
[#54333] Requesting Commit Access — Aman Gupta <ruby@...1.net>
Hello ruby-core,
Hi,
[#54415] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8286][Open] Can't decode non-MIME Base64 — "adacosta (Alan Da Costa)" <alandacosta@...>
[#54459] [CommonRuby - Feature #8291][Open] Allow retrieving the root Fiber of a Thread — "halorgium (Tim Carey-Smith)" <ruby-lang@...>
[#54473] [Backport 200 - Backport #8299][Open] Minor error in float parsing — "bobjalex (Bob Alexander)" <bobjalex@...>
[#54509] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8310][Open] resque-web crashes with segfault on Ruby 2.0.0-p0 only, Resque 1.24.1, Redis 2.6.12 — "vaharoni (Amit Aharoni)" <amit.sites@...>
[#54559] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8321][Open] Ripper: I would like coordinates for keywords — "ericp (Eric Promislow)" <eric.promislow@...>
[#54606] Plan to the first 2.0.0 patchlevel release. — Tomoyuki Chikanaga <nagachika00@...>
Hello, Rubyists.
Hi,
Could you please backport the following:
[#54621] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8339][Open] Introducing Geneartional Garbage Collection for CRuby/MRI — "ko1 (Koichi Sasada)" <redmine@...>
(2013/04/28 9:23), authorNari (Narihiro Nakamura) wrote:
2013/4/28 SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net>:
(2013/05/04 12:08), Narihiro Nakamura wrote:
2013/5/4 SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net>:
(2013/05/06 11:50), Tanaka Akira wrote:
2013/5/6 SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net>:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, ko1 (Koichi Sasada)
(2013/04/28 21:40), Magnus Holm wrote:
(2013/04/28 23:34), SASADA Koichi wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:07 PM, SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
(2013/04/29 1:19), Magnus Holm wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:29 PM, SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
"ko1 (Koichi Sasada)" <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#54665] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8344][Open] Status of Psych and Syck — "Eregon (Benoit Daloze)" <redmine@...>
[ruby-core:54626] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8341][Open] block_given? (and the actual block) persist between calls to a proc created from a method (using method().to_proc()).
Issue #8341 has been reported by pythonesque (Joshua Yanovski).
----------------------------------------
Bug #8341: block_given? (and the actual block) persist between calls to a proc created from a method (using method().to_proc()).
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8341
Author: pythonesque (Joshua Yanovski)
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Target version:
ruby -v: 2.0.0-p0
Backport: 1.9.3: UNKNOWN, 2.0.0: UNKNOWN
Confirmed on both 2.0.0 and 1.9.2-p290. A testcase (utilizing RSpec) is attached, but the behavior is easy to demonstrate without a testcase or RSpec.
First, we define a method that can optionally accept a block.
def foo
if block_given?
yield
else
puts "No block given."
end
end
Then, we convert the method to a proc and store it in a variable.
method_to_proc = method(:foo).to_proc
Now, we try calling method_to_proc without a block, getting the expected result:
method_to_proc.call
# => No block given.
We call it again, this time with a block, and again get the expected result:
method_to_proc.call { puts "Block given." }
# => Block given.
But when we call it a third time, again with no block...
method_to_proc.call
# => Block given.
...it remembers the previous proc that was passed in.
If we then call it with a new proc, it overwrites the old proc as expected (this is not tested in the testcase, which only tests block_given?):
method_to_proc.call { puts "New block given." }
# => New block given.
The testcase verifies this behavior, and also that the behavior does not occur when calling a method in the usual way, or when using method() but not to_proc(), or when using method().to_proc() but not storing the result in the same variable (the last of which isn't that surprising but is included for completeness).
I cannot see any reason that this should be expected behavior. Either block_given? should work the same way in method.to_proc()s as it does in method()s, or it should always return false, and it certainly shouldn't "remember" the last block used.
--
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/