[#83096] File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?}) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
On 2017/10/04 8:47, normal@ruby-lang.org wrote:
5 messages
2017/10/04
[#83100] Re: File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?})
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/10/04
Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#83105] Re: File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?})
— Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
2017/10/04
On 2017/10/04 15:55, Eric Wong wrote:
[#83107] Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes? — Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@...>
Hello,
9 messages
2017/10/04
[#83113] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— "Urabe, Shyouhei" <shyouhei@...>
2017/10/05
This has been requested countless times, then rejected each and every time.
[#83129] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@...>
2017/10/05
Sorry I didn't found it on the core mail list's archive.
[#83138] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— "Urabe, Shyouhei" <shyouhei@...>
2017/10/06
Ruby has not been made of popular votes so far. You have to show us
[#83149] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/10/06
Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@gmail.com> wrote:
[#83200] [Ruby trunk Feature#13996] [PATCH] file.c: apply2files releases GVL — normalperson@...
Issue #13996 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
4 messages
2017/10/10
[ruby-core:83150] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
From:
Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@...>
Date:
2017-10-06 07:21:06 UTC
List:
ruby-core #83150
Then we should stop evolving the language because all the new stuff we could introduce would eventually increase learning, review, optimization, and implementation costs, right? 2017-10-06 9:04 GMT+02:00 Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>: > Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@gmail.com> wrote: > > this was mentioned at Euruko's conference by Bozhidar Batsov and fully > > resonated with my own personal experience using Ruby. As I tweeted after > > the conference I would like to contribute to make Ruby better, and > > aliasing Enumerable#include? with Enumerable#includes? would be a great > > start. I simply can't remember how many times I have written includes? > > instead of include? Last Saturday I definitely confirmed that I'm not the > > only one. What do you think? > > Having multiple names for the same thing increases learning, > review, optimization, and implementation costs. IMHO, Ruby > already has too many aliases which make things more difficult > than they should be; we should not add more aliases. > > > Furthermore, there are many classes outside Enumerable with > "include?" which would also need "includes?" for consistency if > your change were accepted. This also applies to 3rd-party > libraries like Rack and Rails which subclass core Ruby classes > or define workalike "include?" methods for databases or > case-insensitive hashes. > > Introducing a second name would be harmful to polymorphic use. > > If Ruby were a brand new language with no baggage, we may only > have "includes?" instead. But Ruby has tons of outside > dependencies which already rely on "include?" for several > decades, now. > > > A similar example: *nix has a similar problem with "creat" and > "O_CREAT". Introducing "create" and "O_CREATE" as aliases at > this point would only harm compatibility, portability, and > reviewability. > > Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> > <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core> > Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>