[#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:83413] [Ruby trunk Misc#13840][Rejected] Collection methods - stability
From:
shyouhei@...
Date:
2017-10-20 02:03:14 UTC
List:
ruby-core #83413
Issue #13840 has been updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe). Status changed from Open to Rejected (Rejecting for now but please don't hesitate to open a new one for the Gem::Resolver issue if necessary.) As Martin already pointed out our documents clearly say that sorting methods are not stable. ---------------------------------------- Misc #13840: Collection methods - stability https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13840#change-67378 * Author: MSP-Greg (Greg L) * Status: Rejected * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ---------------------------------------- I'm trying to fix some method code (`Gem::Resolver#search_for`) in rubygems. Regardless, in simplifying the code, I was left with one question regarding all of the sort/filter group methods in ruby. Which ones are considered stable, or, is original order maintained where applicable? Obviously, this pertains to `sort` and `sort_by`, but also has meaning in `group_by`, `select`, `reject`, and similar methods. I'm not proposing one or another, although I'd prefer stable. Docs for all these methods should note this, and if stability is guaranteed, tests should verify it. Happy to help. As an aside, `Gem::Resolver#search_for` exists in both [ruby](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/21e4ade56b4261c549fd03f96f4430946d028bea/lib/rubygems/resolver.rb#L225-L235) and [rubygems](https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/d5de035229fc5745e17cfa56b3f3ebe30f537468/lib/rubygems/resolver.rb#L225-L256), but is different. Also, a test for it exists in rubygems, but not in ruby. Seems odd. -- 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>