[#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:83584] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#14059] Refine multiple classes in one call
From:
RRRoy BBBean <rrroybbbean@...>
Date:
2017-10-26 20:48:06 UTC
List:
ruby-core #83584
On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 17:30 +0000, kevin.deisz@gmail.com wrote: > Issue #14059 has been reported by kddeisz (Kevin Deisz). > > ---------------------------------------- > Feature #14059: Refine multiple classes in one call > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14059 > > * Author: kddeisz (Kevin Deisz) > * Status: Open > * Priority: Normal > * Assignee: > * Target version: > ---------------------------------------- > ... > ~~~ > refine NilClass, Array, Hash do > def positive_integer? > false > end > end > ~~~ > > Is this something that people would consider? It seems like a good > use case for refinements because I just want to send a message to an > object, so basically I want a default case. I could just refine > Object but that feels wrong, I'd rather get an undefined method > exception so that I know something unexpected occurred. If accepted > I'd be happy to submit a patch. Yes. This is awesome and excellent. For curiosity, why not enclose the classes in []? Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>