[#75225] [Ruby trunk Feature#12324] Support OpenSSL 1.1.0 (and drop support for 0.9.6/0.9.7) — k@...
Issue #12324 has been reported by Kazuki Yamaguchi.
6 messages
2016/04/27
[#78693] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#12324] Support OpenSSL 1.1.0 (and drop support for 0.9.6/0.9.7)
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2016/12/17
k@rhe.jp wrote:
[#78701] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#12324] Support OpenSSL 1.1.0 (and drop support for 0.9.6/0.9.7)
— Kazuki Yamaguchi <k@...>
2016/12/17
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 01:31:12AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
[#78702] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#12324] Support OpenSSL 1.1.0 (and drop support for 0.9.6/0.9.7)
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2016/12/17
Kazuki Yamaguchi <k@rhe.jp> wrote:
[ruby-core:75176] Bignum in Fixnum Range
From:
Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...>
Date:
2016-04-25 15:09:09 UTC
List:
ruby-core #75176
Hello ruby-core! I was just wondering why in MRI, Bignum#coerce(1)[0] returns a Bignum. Is it to strictly satisfy the `coerce` protocol of returning two object of the same class? As far as I know, all other places in the code base return a Fixnum for computations that fit in its range, and Bignum#coerce seems the only exception. I have been experimenting with disallowing Bignum with values in the Fixnum range in another implementation and so far it seems to cause no incompatibility, because core numeric operations already handle Bignum directly anyway and Fixnum/Bignum are mostly implementation detail for the regular Ruby user. So, is there a particular reason why Bignum#coerce allows to create Bignum in Fixnum range? Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>