[#70252] Re: [ruby-cvs:58640] nobu:r51492 (trunk): node.c: NODE_ALLOCA for ALLOCV — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Besides possible backwards compatibility, can we drop volatile
3 messages
2015/08/05
[#70257] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11420] [Open] Introduce ID key table into MRI — ko1@...
Issue #11420 has been reported by Koichi Sasada.
11 messages
2015/08/06
[#70337] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11420] [Open] Introduce ID key table into MRI
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/08/11
Nice. Thank you guys for looking into this.
[#70349] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11420] [Open] Introduce ID key table into MRI
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/08/12
Btw, did you consider using flexible array to avoid extra malloc
[#70355] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11420] [Open] Introduce ID key table into MRI
— Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@...>
2015/08/12
I thought to suggest to embed hash_id_table directly into places when it is
[#70356] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11420] [Open] Introduce ID key table into MRI
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2015/08/12
On 2015/08/13 4:29, Юрий Соколов wrote:
[#70358] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11420] [Open] Introduce ID key table into MRI
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/08/12
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#70509] [Ruby trunk - Misc #11276] [RFC] compile.c: convert to use ccan/list — ko1@...
Issue #11276 has been updated by Koichi Sasada.
3 messages
2015/08/21
[#70639] the undefined behavior of an iterator if it is modified inside of the block to which it yields — Daniel Doubrovkine <dblock@...>
(this is my first time e-mailing list list, so apologies for any misstep :)
4 messages
2015/08/31
[ruby-core:70261] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11048] blocks raise on missing and extra keyword args
From:
alxtskrnk@...
Date:
2015-08-06 17:50:01 UTC
List:
ruby-core #70261
Issue #11048 has been updated by bug hit.
bug hit wrote:
> another use case for this is hash destructuring
>
> ```
> array_of_hashes.each do |key1:, key2:|
> end
> ```
>
> it would be much better if this code did not raise on extra or missing keys, otherwise this type of destructuring is almost completely impractical
Please comment on the use case of hash destructuring via block keyword args.
----------------------------------------
Bug #11048: blocks raise on missing and extra keyword args
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11048#change-53686
* Author: bug hit
* Status: Rejected
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Yukihiro Matsumoto
* ruby -v: ruby 2.2.1p85 (2015-02-26 revision 49769) [x86_64-linux]
* Backport: 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN, 2.2: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
blocks intentionally tolerate arity mismatches
```
irb(main):001:0> proc{|a, b| [a, b]}.(1)
[
[0] 1,
[1] nil
]
irb(main):003:0> proc{|a, b|[a, b]}.(1, 2, 3)
[
[0] 1,
[1] 2
]
```
so why not missing keyword args?
```
irb(main):002:0> proc{|a:, b:|[a, b]}.(a: 1)
ArgumentError: missing keyword: b
irb(main):004:0> proc{|a:, b:|[a, b]}.(a: 1, b: 1, c: 1)
ArgumentError: unknown keyword: c
```
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/