[#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:81757] [Ruby trunk Feature#13676] to_s method is not overriden for Set
From:
shevegen@...
Date:
2017-06-23 15:55:33 UTC
List:
ruby-core #81757
Issue #13676 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).
I have no pro or con opinion. I did however had want to compare Set to Array and the two behave differently.
require 'pp'
require 'set'
s1 = Set.new
s1<<'tic'<<'tac'
puts s1.to_s
pp s1
array = Array.new
array << 'tic' << 'tac'
puts array.to_s
pp array
# Output:
#
# <Set:0x810460c4>
# <Set: {"tic", "tac"}>
# ["tic", "tac"]
# ["tic", "tac"]
I have no idea why Set behaves that way, perhaps there is a clear reason.
I can however had understand razor too - without knowing the context or
really having a lot of experience with Set mayself, to me the behaviour
of Array seems "more useful" by default. But again, I have no real idea
about this so neither can I say good or bad if it would be changed - I
really don't know. I only use Arrays, barely ever Set myself. :)
----------------------------------------
Feature #13676: to_s method is not overriden for Set
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13676#change-65454
* Author: razor (Marat Chardymov)
* Status: Feedback
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee:
* Target version:
----------------------------------------
When I call
~~~ ruby
s1 = Set.new
s1<<'tic'<<'tac'
s1.to_s
~~~
I'd expect ['tic', 'tac'] values being printed, not "#<Set:0x0055f331076348>"
--
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>