[#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:83618] [Ruby trunk Bug#1720] [NaN] == [NaN] が true になる
From:
mame@...
Date:
2017-10-31 03:07:56 UTC
List:
ruby-core #83618
Issue #1720 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Summary: ko1: `[NaN] == [NaN]` evaluates to true. This looks awkward since `NaN == NaN` is `false` and `[1] == [1.0]` is `true`. matz: `rb_equal` first checks if the two sides are the same, which causes this behavior. `NaN` is a special object since `equal?` returns true but `==` returns false. However, I don't want to make equivalence check slow for such a special case. There are some approaches to fix this issue: (1) make `NaN == NaN`, which is consistent but unnatural, (2) change `rb_equal()` not to check `equal?`, which will cause performance degradation, (3) change `rb_equal()` to handle T_FLOAT specially, which will also cause performance degradation, and (4) do nothing. ... I decide that the comparison of `NaN` and `NaN` is undefined in Ruby. ---------------------------------------- Bug #1720: [NaN] == [NaN] が true になる https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/1720#change-67639 * Author: tadf (tadayoshi funaba) * Status: Closed * Priority: Normal * Assignee: mrkn (Kenta Murata) * Target version: 2.0.0 * ruby -v: ruby 1.9.2dev (2009-07-03 trunk 23945) [i686-linux] * Backport: 2.3: UNKNOWN, 2.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- =begin NaN = 0.0/0 [NaN] == [NaN] が true になりますが、 NaN == NaN #=> false [1] == [1.0] #=> true という結果からするとおかしいように思います。 =end -- 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>