[#80974] [Ruby trunk Feature#13517] [PATCH] reduce rb_mutex_t size from 160 to 80 bytes on 64-bit — ko1@...
Issue #13517 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
4 messages
2017/05/02
[#81024] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13517] [PATCH] reduce rb_mutex_t size from 160 to 80 bytes on 64-bit
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2017/05/07
sorry for late response.
[#80996] [Ruby trunk Feature#13544] Allow loading an ISeqs sequence directly from a C extension without requiring buffer is in an RVALUE — sam.saffron@...
Issue #13544 has been reported by sam.saffron (Sam Saffron).
3 messages
2017/05/04
[#81016] [Ruby trunk Bug#13526] Segmentation fault at 0x0055c2e58e8920 ruby 2.3.1p112 (2016-04-26 revision 54768) [x86_64-linux] — s.wanabe@...
Issue #13526 has been updated by wanabe (_ wanabe).
3 messages
2017/05/07
[#81048] Re: [ruby-cvs:65788] normal:r58614 (trunk): rb_execution_context_t: move stack, stack_size and cfp from rb_thread_t — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
It causes compile error on raspi 3.
3 messages
2017/05/09
[#81201] Re: [ruby-cvs:65935] normal:r58761 (trunk): test/test_extilibs.rb: do not check the existence of fiddle — "U.NAKAMURA" <usa@...>
Hi, Eric
4 messages
2017/05/16
[#81202] Re: [ruby-cvs:65935] normal:r58761 (trunk): test/test_extilibs.rb: do not check the existence of fiddle
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/05/16
"U.NAKAMURA" <usa@garbagecollect.jp> wrote:
[#81427] Fwd: [ruby-changes:46809] normal:r58924 (trunk): test for IO.copy_stream CPU usage (r58534) — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Hi,
6 messages
2017/05/28
[#81428] Re: Fwd: [ruby-changes:46809] normal:r58924 (trunk): test for IO.copy_stream CPU usage (r58534)
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/05/28
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[ruby-core:81441] [Ruby trunk Feature#13606] Enumerator equality and comparison
From:
glex.spb@...
Date:
2017-05-28 19:48:58 UTC
List:
ruby-core #81441
Issue #13606 has been updated by glebm (Gleb Mazovetskiy). MSP-Greg (Greg L) wrote: > Could be helpful, but some `Enumerators` are not ordered. So how would `==` work for 'hash like' objects (assuming they're not based on a hash, which has an `==` operator)? > > I suppose it could be considered 'restricted' to ordered collections... Equal objects should produce equal results when used. From this perspective on equality, enumerators that yield in different order should not be considered equal, even if they internally yield elements from an unordered collection. If the enumerator yields in a different order every time it's called, then the comparison is not guaranteed to return the same result every time. This is a rare edge case though. ---------------------------------------- Feature #13606: Enumerator equality and comparison https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13606#change-65145 * Author: glebm (Gleb Mazovetskiy) * Status: Feedback * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Target version: ---------------------------------------- In Ruby, most objects are compared by value. What do you think about `Enumerator`s following the same pattern? I think this would greatly increase the expressiveness of Ruby. Proposal: Two `Enumerator`s should be considered equal (`==`) if they yield the same number of elements and these elements are equal (`==`). If both of the `Enumerator`s are infinite, the equality operator never terminates. `<=>` should be handled similarly. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>