[#84867] [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults — v.ondruch@...
Issue #14357 has been reported by vo.x (Vit Ondruch).
11 messages
2018/01/15
[#85364] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/03
v.ondruch@tiscali.cz wrote:
[#85368] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/03
Eric Wong wrote:
[#85442] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/06
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[#85451] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@...>
2018/02/06
On 02/06/2018 05:00 AM, Eric Wong wrote:
[#84874] [Ruby trunk Bug#14360] Regression CSV#open method for writing from Ruby 2.4.3 to 2.5.0 — shevegen@...
Issue #14360 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).
3 messages
2018/01/15
[#84980] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — hsbt@...
Issue #13618 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
10 messages
2018/01/23
[#85012] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/23
hsbt@ruby-lang.org wrote:
[#85081] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/24
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[#85082] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/24
> Thinking about this even more; I don't think it's possible to
[#85088] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — danieldasilvaferreira@...
Issue #13618 has been updated by dsferreira (Daniel Ferreira).
3 messages
2018/01/25
[#85107] [Ruby trunk Misc#14222] Mutex.lock is not safe inside signal handler: what is? — eregontp@...
Issue #14222 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
3 messages
2018/01/25
[#85136] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
samuel@oriontransfer.org wrote:
3 messages
2018/01/26
[ruby-core:85102] [Ruby trunk Feature#14392] Pipe operator
From:
shyouhei@...
Date:
2018-01-25 07:37:00 UTC
List:
ruby-core #85102
Issue #14392 has been updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe).
dsferreira (Daniel Ferreira) wrote:
> shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) wrote:
>
> > Is it really worth adding a new syntax to replace private def... ?
>
> For me it is Shyouhei.
> Like I said before, I care a lot about the visibility of my methods.
> The clear definition of each interface and its preservation over time it is a top concern in my architectural work.
> The interface integrity is this way guaranteed by a strict rule deeming that every method has its own access modifier set.
> This applies to `public`, `protected` and `private`.
> Naming is hard and very important and the API resembles that. It is sweat printed in. (Just to try to express my emotions about this)
>
> We are talking about hundreds to not say thousands of method name duplications that I have in my code base currently.
> I don't mind having the extra work but I'm not everybody.
To be clear I am not against specifying method visibility.
> Now, why do I require the visibility being set after the method definition?
> Because I order my methods alphabetically and I don't want to order them by visibility.
> By using: `"private def ..."` alphabetical order based on method name makes little sense to my mind.
Don't you have difficulties writing elixir code then? They, too, don't take visibilities at the last.
> I code ruby because of its elegance and fluidity so I always strive to write code that makes sense to my eyes.
>
> The proposal of the pipe operator makes perfect sense to me because it resembles my bash memories and it comes as natural as a no brainer.
If you prefer sound visibility specifiers rather than implicit ones, I think that a visibility of a method shall be placed somewhere near the method name. By placing private after the end of a method body, that specifier should become too hard to find out the corres[onding method name. To me, def ... end |> private seems far less "fluent" than private def ...
----------------------------------------
Feature #14392: Pipe operator
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14392#change-69814
* Author: dsferreira (Daniel Ferreira)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee:
* Target version:
----------------------------------------
I would like to see implemented in ruby a pipe operator as we have in elixir.
An example of application I have in mind is this:
```ruby
class Foo
def bar(var)
puts “Hello #{var}!”
end |> private
def baz(arg)
bar(arg)
end
end
foo = Foo.new
foo.baz("Fred") # => "Hello Fred!"
```
It can also help simplify method chains:
```ruby
class Secret
def initialise(user, password)
@user = user
@password = password
end
def second_pass(encrypted_string)
encrypted_string.chain_4.chain_5.chain_6
end |> private
##
# Super encryption
def super_encryption
@password.chain_1.chain_2.chain_3
|> second_pass
end |> public
end
```
And also simplify codes like this:
```ruby
class Foo
def bar(*args)
baz = args.select { |arg| arg =~ /regex/ }.first
good?(baz)
end
public :bar
def good(arg)
arg.to_s.size > 10
end
private :good
end
```
to become:
```ruby
class Foo
##
# Bar public method.
def bar(*args)
args.select { |arg| arg =~ /regex/ }.first
|> good?
end |> public
def good(arg)
arg.to_s.size > 10
end |> private
end
```
Lots of local variables would be saved and I would expect some performance improvements with that.
--
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>