[#81492] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — normalperson@...
Issue #13618 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
12 messages
2017/06/01
[#88695] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/08/27
> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13618
[#81569] [Ruby trunk Feature#12589] VM performance improvement proposal — vmakarov@...
Issue #12589 has been updated by vmakarov (Vladimir Makarov).
3 messages
2017/06/04
[#81581] [Ruby trunk Bug#13632] Not processable interrupt queue for a thread after it's notified that FD is closed in some other thread. — sir.nickolas@...
Issue #13632 has been reported by nvashchenko (Nikolay Vashchenko).
4 messages
2017/06/05
[#81590] Re: [ruby-cvs:66197] ko1:r59023 (trunk): revert r59020 because it may fail some tests sometimes on some environment (http://ci.rvm.jp/). This revert is to check the reason of failures. — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
ko1@ruby-lang.org wrote:
5 messages
2017/06/06
[#81591] Re: [ruby-cvs:66197] ko1:r59023 (trunk): revert r59020 because it may fail some tests sometimes on some environment (http://ci.rvm.jp/). This revert is to check the reason of failures.
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/06/06
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[#81596] Re: [ruby-cvs:66203] Re: Re: ko1:r59023 (trunk): revert r59020 because it may fail some tests sometimes on some environment (http://ci.rvm.jp/). This revert is to check the reason of failures.
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/06/06
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[#81825] [Ruby trunk Feature#13697] [PATCH]: futex based thread primitives — normalperson@...
Issue #13697 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
3 messages
2017/06/29
[ruby-core:81564] [Ruby trunk Feature#13630] :[] method should accept block in nice syntax
From:
shevegen@...
Date:
2017-06-03 16:39:15 UTC
List:
ruby-core #81564
Issue #13630 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).
I agree. I always wondered about this too.
I did not make a suggestion like this because I suspect that one reason may be a parser issue, as otherwise it would most likely have been done already.
In particular for elements without any arguments like:
Bam.[] { |b| puts b }
Or more verbose to use your example:
module Bam
def self.[](bam=42)
yield bam
end
end
Bam.[] { |b| puts b } # => 42
Bam[] { |b| puts b } # => SyntaxError: (irb):14: syntax error, unexpected { arg, expecting end-of-input
Only difference here between failure and success is one lonely '.'. I am not sure if it is technically
possible to get rid of the '.', but if it would be possible, that would be great. The '.' visually
disturbs me when I see [] ... but not at other places, it's weird. :D
----------------------------------------
Feature #13630: :[] method should accept block in nice syntax
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13630#change-65266
* Author: khoan (khoa nguyen)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee:
* Target version:
----------------------------------------
~~~ ruby
# given
module Bam
def self.[](bam)
yield bam
end
end
# SyntaxError: unexpected keyword_do_block
Bam['bam'] do |b|
puts b
end
# SyntaxError: unexpected { arg, expecting end-of-input
Bam['bam'] { |b|
puts b
}
# Valid but more verbose
Bam.[]('bam') do |b|
puts b
end
Bam.[]('bam') { |b|
puts b
}
~~~
--
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>