[#59462] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9342][Open] [PATCH] SizedQueue#clear does not notify waiting threads in Ruby 1.9.3 — "jsc (Justin Collins)" <redmine@...>

9 messages 2014/01/02

[#59466] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9343][Open] [PATCH] SizedQueue#max= wakes up waiters properly — "normalperson (Eric Wong)" <normalperson@...>

11 messages 2014/01/02

[#59498] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9352][Open] [BUG] rb_sys_fail_str(connect(2) for [fe80::1%lo0]:3000) - errno == 0 — "kain (Claudio Poli)" <claudio@...>

10 messages 2014/01/03

[#59516] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9356][Open] TCPSocket.new does not seem to handle INTR — "charliesome (Charlie Somerville)" <charliesome@...>

48 messages 2014/01/03

[#59538] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9362][Assigned] Minimize cache misshit to gain optimal speed — "shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)" <shyouhei@...>

33 messages 2014/01/03
[#59582] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #9362][Assigned] Minimize cache misshit to gain optimal speed — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2014/01/06

Intersting challenge.

[#59541] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #9362][Assigned] Minimize cache misshit to gain optimal speed — Eric Wong <normalperson@...> 2014/01/04

Hi, I noticed a trivial typo in array.c, and it fails building struct.c

[#59583] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9367][Open] REXML::XmlDecl doesn't use user specified quotes — "bearmini (Takashi Oguma)" <bear.mini@...>

12 messages 2014/01/06

[#59642] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9384][Open] Segfault in ruby 2.1.0p0 — "cbliard (Christophe Bliard)" <christophe.bliard@...>

11 messages 2014/01/08

[#59791] About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>

A while ago I created a proof-of-concept that I intended to use in my

16 messages 2014/01/15
[#59794] Re: About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2014/01/15

On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:58, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:

[#59808] Re: About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...> 2014/01/16

Em 15-01-2014 19:42, Eric Hodel escreveu:

[#59810] Re: About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2014/01/16

On 16 Jan 2014, at 02:15, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:

[#59826] Re: About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...> 2014/01/17

Em 16-01-2014 19:43, Eric Hodel escreveu:

[#59832] Re: About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2014/01/17

On 17 Jan 2014, at 04:22, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:

[ruby-core:59696] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9397] (Open) Lambda#=== raises `ArgumentError` if the lambda accepts 0 args or requires more than 1

From: Myron@...
Date: 2014-01-11 18:47:05 UTC
List: ruby-core #59696
Issue #9397 has been reported by Myron Marston.

----------------------------------------
Bug #9397: Lambda#=== raises `ArgumentError` if the lambda accepts 0 args or requires more than 1
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9397

* Author: Myron Marston
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Category: 
* Target version: 
* ruby -v: 1.9+
* Backport: 1.9.3: UNKNOWN, 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
Ruby 1.9 introduced `===` on lambdas/procs so that you can put them in case statements.  I'm a fan of this, but there's an unfortunate side effect I've run into recently.

If you have a lambda that accepts 0 args (e.g. `lambda { }`) or requires more than 1 arg (e.g. `lambda { |x, y| }`), calling `===` on it will raise an `ArgumentError`.  I understand why: lambdas are strict about the number of arguments, and `===` is just an alias of `call` now.  However, this makes things difficult in a gem when you want to use `===` to match arbitrary objects (since it's the general-purpose protocol ruby provides for that purpose) and there may be lambdas provided by the user.  I ran into this in RSpec recently, and my (hacky) solution is to `rescue ArgumentError`:

https://github.com/rspec/rspec-support/commit/caf76c5de26ea1ca93f09f1097a0092ee4bf828d

It would be nice not to have to do this, and IMO, `===` on all built-in types should maintain the contract that they can be called with 1 arg and will not raise an error.  Consider that ruby's syntax doesn't even allow you to call `===` with 0 or more than 1 argument unless you resort to hacks like `send` (e.g. `obj.send(:===, x, y, z)`).  Given that, I think that `===` on lambdas should return false rather than raising an ArgumentError if the lambda does not support being called with 1 argument.





-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

In This Thread

Prev Next