[#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:60308] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8842] Integer#[] with range

From: shibata.hiroshi@...
Date: 2014-01-30 06:17:14 UTC
List: ruby-core #60308
Issue #8842 has been updated by Hiroshi SHIBATA.

Target version changed from 2.1.0 to current: 2.2.0

----------------------------------------
Feature #8842: Integer#[] with range
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8842#change-44797

* Author: Yusuke Endoh
* Status: Assigned
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Yusuke Endoh
* Category: 
* Target version: current: 2.2.0
----------------------------------------
=begin
I propose to extend Integer#[] accepting a range.

    0b01001101[2, 4] == 0b0011
    0bHGFEDCBA[2, 4] == 0bFEDC

== Use case

I believe that everyone has written a code like this:

    if (n >> 2) & 0xf == 0x3
      ...
    end

because this is a very common idiom in C.
But it is less readable, writable, extendable and optimizable.

    if n[2, 4] == 0x3
      ...
    end

is much better in the all aspects.

== Corner cases

The current Integer#[] (and shift operators) handle an integer as "a bit array with infinity length";
it returns 0 for any negative index and an (extended) sign bit for any index greater than MSB.
We also can use this standard to define the spec for a range argument.
For example:

    15[-1, 42] #=> 30  (equivalent to (15 << 1) && (2 ** 42 - 1))
    15[3, 42]  #=>  1  (equivalent to (15 >> 3) && (2 ** 42 - 1))
    15[3..Float::INFINITY]  #=> 1  (equivalent to 15 >> 3)
    15[-3..Float::INFINITY] #=> 2  (equivalent to 1 << 3)

    -1[0..Float::INFINITY]   #=> -1
    -1[1..Float::INFINITY]   #=> -1
    -1[-1..Float::INFINITY]  #=> -2

    1[-Float::INFINITY..0] #=> failed to allocate memory
    2[-Float::INFINITY..0] #=> 0


Only tricky case that I thought of is a range (beg..end) whose "end" is smaller than "beg".
I think it should be handled as (beg..Float::INFINITY).

    15[-3..-4] #=> 2  (equivalent to 1 << 3)
    -1[0..-1] #=> -1
    -1[0..-2] #=> -1

What do you think?
=end


---Files--------------------------------
integer-with-range.pdf (248 KB)


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

In This Thread

Prev Next