[#68478] Looking for MRI projects for Ruby Google Summer of Code 2015 — Tony Arcieri <bascule@...>
Hi ruby-core,
10 messages
2015/03/10
[#68480] Re: Looking for MRI projects for Ruby Google Summer of Code 2015
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2015/03/10
I have.
[#68549] Re: Looking for MRI projects for Ruby Google Summer of Code 2015
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2015/03/17
I sent several ideas on previous, mail, but they are seems rejected?
[#68493] [Ruby trunk - Feature #10532] [PATCH] accept_nonblock supports "exception: false" — nobu@...
Issue #10532 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.
5 messages
2015/03/11
[#68503] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #10532] [PATCH] accept_nonblock supports "exception: false"
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/03/12
Committed as r49948.
[#68504] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #10532] [PATCH] accept_nonblock supports "exception: false"
— Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
2015/03/12
On 2015/03/12 12:08, Eric Wong wrote:
[#68506] Seven stacks (and two questions) — Jakub Trzebiatowski <jaktrze1@...>
The Ruby Hacking Guide says that Ruby has窶ヲ seven stacks. Is it an implementation choice (and it could be implemented with one stack), or is there really a need for seven logical stacks? For example, Lua has one stack, and still closures with upvalues are totally possible (it窶冱 like Ruby窶冱 blocks that can reference local variables of their enclosing method, but it works for any function with any upvalues).
5 messages
2015/03/12
[#68520] Possible regression in 2.1 and 2.2 in binding when combined with delegate? — Joe Swatosh <joe.swatosh@...>
# The following code
3 messages
2015/03/14
[#68604] GSOC project Cross-thread Fiber support — surya pratap singh raghuvanshi <oshosurya@...>
- *hi i am a third year computer science student interested in working
6 messages
2015/03/22
[#68606] Re: GSOC project Cross-thread Fiber support
— Tony Arcieri <bascule@...>
2015/03/22
Hi Surya,
[#68619] Re: GSOC project Cross-thread Fiber support
— surya pratap singh raghuvanshi <oshosurya@...>
2015/03/23
hi tony,
[ruby-core:68359] [Ruby trunk - Misc #10907] [Rejected] Documentation of Addrinfo.new suggests default family of PF_UNSPEC while in practise it appears to be AF_INET
From:
akr@...
Date:
2015-03-01 00:33:27 UTC
List:
ruby-core #68359
Issue #10907 has been updated by Akira Tanaka.
Status changed from Open to Rejected
Use pfamily as you noticed.
pfamily (and 2nd argument for Addrinfo.new) corresponds to ai_family field of struct addrinfo and will be used for 1st argument of socket().
afamily (and first 1 or 2 bytes in 1st argument for Addrinfo.new) corresponds to sa_family field of struct sockaddr and will be used for bind() or connect().
----------------------------------------
Misc #10907: Documentation of Addrinfo.new suggests default family of PF_UNSPEC while in practise it appears to be AF_INET
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10907#change-51704
* Author: Yorick Peterse
* Status: Rejected
* Priority: Low
* Assignee:
----------------------------------------
The documentation of Addrinfo.new states the following:
> family is specified as an integer to specify the protocol family such as
> Socket::PF_INET. It can be a symbol or a string which is the constant name
> with or without PF_ prefix such as :INET, :INET6, :UNIX, "PF_INET", etc. If
> omitted, PF_UNSPEC is assumed.
However, the behaviour contradicts this:
Addrinfo.new(Socket.sockaddr_in(80, 'localhost')).afamily == Socket::PF_UNSPEC # => false
Addrinfo.new(Socket.sockaddr_in(80, 'localhost')).afamily == Socket::AF_INET # => true
The question here is, which of the following is the case:
1. The documentation is simply incorrect, the default is always `AF_INET`
2. The behaviour is incorrect, it should be `PF_UNSPEC` instead of `AF_INET`
3. This is platform specific (meaning the documentation should state this)
On Twitter Matz mentioned
(<https://twitter.com/YorickPeterse/status/570700823526830080>) thinking it was
platform specific, but I'd like to be 100% sure about this.
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/