[#61171] Re: [ruby-changes:33145] normal:r45224 (trunk): gc.c: fix build for testing w/o RGenGC — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
(2014/03/01 16:15), normal wrote:
3 messages
2014/03/01
[#61243] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9425] [PATCH] st: use power-of-two sizes to avoid slow modulo ops — normalperson@...
Issue #9425 has been updated by Eric Wong.
4 messages
2014/03/03
[#61359] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9609] [Open] [PATCH] vm_eval.c: fix misplaced RB_GC_GUARDs — normalperson@...
Issue #9609 has been reported by Eric Wong.
5 messages
2014/03/07
[#61360] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #9609] [Open] [PATCH] vm_eval.c: fix misplaced RB_GC_GUARDs
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/03/07
(2014/03/07 19:09), normalperson@yhbt.net wrote:
[#61362] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #9609] [Open] [PATCH] vm_eval.c: fix misplaced RB_GC_GUARDs
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/03/07
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61424] [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I'm unsure about this. I _hate_ the extra branches this adds;
13 messages
2014/03/12
[#61466] Re: [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/03/13
Hi Eric,
[#61471] Re: [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/03/13
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61508] Re: [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/03/15
(2014/03/14 2:12), Eric Wong wrote:
[#61509] Re: [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/03/15
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61452] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [Open] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been reported by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2014/03/13
[#61496] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9638] [Open] [PATCH] limit IDs to 32-bits on 64-bit systems — normalperson@...
Issue #9638 has been reported by Eric Wong.
4 messages
2014/03/14
[#61568] hash function for global method cache — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I came upon this because I noticed existing st numtable worked poorly
7 messages
2014/03/17
[#61605] Re: hash function for global method cache
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/03/20
(2014/03/18 8:03), Eric Wong wrote:
[#61606] Re: hash function for global method cache
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/03/20
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61631] Re: hash function for global method cache
— =?KOI8-R?B?4NLJyiDzz8vPzM/X?= <funny.falcon@...>
2014/03/22
what's the profit from using binary tree in place of hash?
[#61632] Re: hash function for global method cache
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/03/22
Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@gmail.com> wrote:
[#61687] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9606] Ocassional SIGSEGV inTestException#test_machine_stackoverflow on OpenBSD — normalperson@...
Issue #9606 has been updated by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2014/03/26
[#61760] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been updated by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2014/03/30
[ruby-core:61582] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9347] Accept non callable argument to detect
From:
ruby-core@...
Date:
2014-03-18 20:50:22 UTC
List:
ruby-core #61582
Issue #9347 has been updated by Marc-Andre Lafortune.
Assignee changed from Yukihiro Matsumoto to Marc-Andre Lafortune
I agree, an optional argument would be best. I'll propose a patch. Could we use `if_none` though?
----------------------------------------
Feature #9347: Accept non callable argument to detect
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9347#change-45864
* Author: Marc-Andre Lafortune
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Marc-Andre Lafortune
* Category: core
* Target version: current: 2.2.0
----------------------------------------
Currently, the only argument that `Enumerable#detect` accepts is a callable object.
Shouldn't we accept non callable objects too?
[42].detect(:not_found){} # => NoMethodError: undefined method `call' for :not_found:Symbol
# would return :not_found instead.
I'd suggest that if the given argument does not `respond_to? :call`, then it would be returned as is instead of raising an error as currently.
Wouldn't this be more flexible and possibly more performant?
Inspired by http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20883414/why-does-enumerabledetect-need-a-proc-lambda
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/