[#69892] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11339] [Open] [PATCH] io.c: avoid kwarg parsing in C API — normalperson@...
Issue #11339 has been reported by Eric Wong.
8 messages
2015/07/07
[#69983] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11339] [Open] [PATCH] io.c: avoid kwarg parsing in C API
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/07/15
normalperson@yhbt.net wrote:
[#69990] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11339] [Open] [PATCH] io.c: avoid kwarg parsing in C API
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2015/07/16
On 2015/07/16 4:41, Eric Wong wrote:
[#69995] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11339] [Open] [PATCH] io.c: avoid kwarg parsing in C API
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/07/16
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#69984] $SAFE inside an Array — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Hi,
4 messages
2015/07/15
[#70001] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11336] [Open] TestProcess#test_exec_fd_3_redirect failed on Solaris 10 — ngotogenome@...
Issue #11336 has been updated by Naohisa Goto.
4 messages
2015/07/16
[#70005] Re: [Ruby trunk - Bug #11336] [Open] TestProcess#test_exec_fd_3_redirect failed on Solaris 10
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/07/16
Sorry, but I think rb_divert_reserved_fd seems a racy fix. I think the
[#70011] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11362] [Open] [PATCH] ensure Process.kill(:STOP, $$) is resumable — normalperson@...
Issue #11362 has been reported by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2015/07/17
[#70016] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11364] [Open] Use smaller buffer for sendmsg — merch-redmine@...
Issue #11364 has been reported by Jeremy Evans.
8 messages
2015/07/17
[#70052] Re: [Ruby trunk - Bug #11364] [Open] Use smaller buffer for sendmsg
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/07/20
merch-redmine@jeremyevans.net wrote:
[#70055] Re: [Ruby trunk - Bug #11364] [Open] Use smaller buffer for sendmsg
— Jeremy Evans <code@...>
2015/07/20
On 07/20 10:46, Eric Wong wrote:
[#70056] Re: [Ruby trunk - Bug #11364] [Open] Use smaller buffer for sendmsg
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/07/21
Jeremy Evans <code@jeremyevans.net> wrote:
[#70103] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11375] Decreased Object Allocation in Pathname.rb — richard.schneeman@...
Issue #11375 has been updated by Richard Schneeman.
3 messages
2015/07/23
[#70156] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11396] Bad performance in ruby >= 2.2 for Hash with many symbol keys — dunric29a@...
Issue #11396 has been updated by David Unric.
3 messages
2015/07/28
[ruby-core:69851] [Ruby trunk - Bug #10967] Is "warning: private attribute?" wrong?
From:
usa@...
Date:
2015-07-03 08:33:25 UTC
List:
ruby-core #69851
Issue #10967 has been updated by Usaku NAKAMURA.
Is this a spec change or a bug?
----------------------------------------
Bug #10967: Is "warning: private attribute?" wrong?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10967#change-53251
* Author: Santiago Pastorino
* Status: Closed
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee:
* ruby -v: ruby 2.3.0dev (2015-03-01 trunk 49796) [x86_64-darwin14]
* Backport: 2.0.0: WONTFIX, 2.1: REQUIRED, 2.2: REQUIRED
----------------------------------------
The following code ...
```ruby
class Y
def initialize
@x = "ZOMG"
end
def print_x
puts x
end
private
attr_reader :x
end
Y.new.print_x
```
outputs ...
```
test.rb:12: warning: private attribute?
```
I tend to think this warning is wrong, I was surprised by https://github.com/rack/rack/pull/811 and I think this is a completely valid use case.
Also this code ...
```ruby
class Y
def initialize
@x = "ZOMG"
end
def print_x
puts x
end
def assign_x
self.x = "ZOMG ZOMG"
end
private
attr_accessor :x
end
y = Y.new
y.assign_x
y.print_x
```
Works fine with warnings also. So a private writer works ok when the receiver is `self` because Ruby has a special case for it, this make me think that private writers were thought to be used.
So ... am I wrong thinking that the warning should be removed or the self special case shouldn't work and be removed from Ruby code?. It doesn't make sense to me to have both things.
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/