[#64210] Asking for clarification for exception handling usage — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>
I've created a ticket for that but didn't get any feedback so I decided
[#64517] Fw: Re: Ruby and Rails to become Apache Incubator Project — Tetsuya Kitahata <kitahata@99.alumni.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
What do you think? >> Ruby developers
What benefits are there to this? I have a feeling that adding unnecessary
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:43:46 -0700
Here I am a Japanese. Before moving anywhere else answer to our question first: what benefits?
tax issue with each other.
Forgot to assert my opinions:
[#64614] cowspace (work-in-progress) — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Hi all, I started working on a cowspace branch. Based on the mspace API
[#64615] [ruby-trunk - Feature #10181] [Open] New method File.openat() — oss-ruby-lang@...
Issue #10181 has been reported by Technorama Ltd..
I like this feature.
On 08/28/2014 02:53 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
Joel VanderWerf <joelvanderwerf@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/29/2014 12:55 AM, Eric Wong wrote:
Joel VanderWerf <joelvanderwerf@gmail.com> wrote:
[#64627] [ruby-trunk - Feature #10182] [PATCH] string.c: move frozen_strings table to rb_vm_t — ko1@...
Issue #10182 has been updated by Koichi Sasada.
[#64671] Fwd: [ruby-changes:35240] normal:r47322 (trunk): symbol.c (rb_sym2id): do not return garbage object — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Why this fix solve your problem?
(2014/08/30 8:50), SASADA Koichi wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
(2014/08/31 0:18), Eric Wong wrote:
[ruby-core:64160] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6817] Partial application
Issue #6817 has been updated by Michael Kohl.
Koichi Sasada wrote:
> Basically, I like this proposal.
> But I'm not sure this notation can be acceptable.
In that case, how about making Symbol#to_proc accept additional arguments?
(1..3).map(:+, 2)
The syntax would be very straightforward, but it doesn't go well with the current implementation of Symbol#to_proc's proc cache. Also this does go away a bit from the original point of partial application, though tbh this sort of scenario is what I mostly had in mind anyway.
----------------------------------------
Feature #6817: Partial application
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6817#change-48163
* Author: Michael Kohl
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Yukihiro Matsumoto
* Category: core
* Target version: next minor
----------------------------------------
=begin
I know that what I propose here is a significant change to Ruby, but it's part of my ongoing quest to get some more functional programming features into Ruby (see also #4539 and #6373).
I was wondering if it would make sense to maybe introduce partial application to Ruby? So that instead of
(1..3).map { |i| i + 2 }
or the somewhat unwieldy
(1..3).map(&2.method(:+))
one could just write
(1..3).map(&2.+)
which I think has a quite rubyish feel to it. I have a POC implementation in Ruby (I tried it with various Fixnum methods) over at my blog (((<URL:http://citizen428.net/blog/2012/07/30/ruby-left-section-for-infix-operators>))), but that was just a quick hack and obviously I don't want to monkey-patch every method with arity 1, but it was a nice way of exploring possible syntax.
=end
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/