[#87467] [Ruby trunk Bug#14841] Very rarely IO#readpartial does not raise EOFError — mofezilla@...
Issue #14841 has been reported by hirura (Hiroyuki URANISHI).
3 messages
2018/06/10
[#87515] [Ruby trunk Bug#14841] Very rarely IO#readpartial does not raise EOFError — hirura@...
Issue #14841 has been updated by hirura (Hiroyuki URANISHI).
7 messages
2018/06/19
[#87516] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14841] Very rarely IO#readpartial does not raise EOFError
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/06/19
hirura@gmail.com wrote:
[#87517] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14841] Very rarely IO#readpartial does not raise EOFError
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/06/19
Sorry, I left this out: If you can reproduce it again, can you
[#87519] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14841] Very rarely IO#readpartial does not raise EOFError
— hirura <hirura@...>
2018/06/19
Hi Eric,
[#87521] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14841] Very rarely IO#readpartial does not raise EOFError
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/06/19
hirura <hirura@gmail.com> wrote:
[#87541] [Ruby trunk Feature#14859] [PATCH] implement Timeout in VM — normalperson@...
Issue #14859 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
4 messages
2018/06/21
[#87570] [Ruby trunk Feature#14859] [PATCH] implement Timeout in VM — eregontp@...
Issue #14859 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
4 messages
2018/06/21
[#87605] [Ruby trunk Bug#14867] Process.wait can wait for MJIT compiler process — takashikkbn@...
Issue #14867 has been reported by k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun).
3 messages
2018/06/23
[#87614] [Ruby trunk Bug#14867] Process.wait can wait for MJIT compiler process — normalperson@...
Issue #14867 has been updated by normalperson (Eric Wong).
4 messages
2018/06/23
[#87631] [Ruby trunk Bug#14867] Process.wait can wait for MJIT compiler process — takashikkbn@...
Issue #14867 has been updated by k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun).
5 messages
2018/06/25
[#87635] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14867] Process.wait can wait for MJIT compiler process
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/06/25
takashikkbn@gmail.com wrote:
[#87665] [Ruby trunk Bug#14867] Process.wait can wait for MJIT compiler process — eregontp@...
Issue #14867 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
4 messages
2018/06/28
[#87710] [Ruby trunk Bug#14867] Process.wait can wait for MJIT compiler process — Greg.mpls@...
Issue #14867 has been updated by MSP-Greg (Greg L).
3 messages
2018/06/30
[ruby-core:87404] [Ruby trunk Bug#14823][Feedback] Endless Range Excluding End
From:
mame@...
Date:
2018-06-05 04:44:03 UTC
List:
ruby-core #87404
Issue #14823 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Status changed from Open to Feedback Thank you for the comment. This argument is very subtle. Some (mathematical) people says that we should have `(1...)` because of two reasons: * `...` is preferably used to port Python code to Ruby because Python's `::` is literally corresponded to Ruby's `...`. * `(1..)` is semantically weird because it does not include the infinity. In other aspect, I like `(1..)` for casual use because it is shorter than `(1...)`. Also, `ary[1..]` looks better than `ary[1...]`. So, currently, we have both. If you have any practical issue caused by having both, let me know. ---------------------------------------- Bug #14823: Endless Range Excluding End https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14823#change-72388 * Author: jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) * Status: Feedback * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Target version: * ruby -v: ruby 2.6.0preview2 (2018-05-31 trunk 63539) [x86_64-openbsd] * Backport: 2.3: UNKNOWN, 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Does it make sense for an endless range to exclude the end? It is currently supported, but the semantics are questionable. ~~~ (1..) # => 1.. (1...) # => 1... (1...) == (1..) # => false ~~~ I think it may be better to only allow `..` for endless ranges, and not allow `...`. I think the use of `...` with an endless range should be a SyntaxError. -- 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>