[#88240] [Ruby trunk Feature#14759] [PATCH] set M_ARENA_MAX for glibc malloc — sam.saffron@...
Issue #14759 has been updated by sam.saffron (Sam Saffron).
[#88251] Re: [ruby-alerts:8236] failure alert on trunk@P895 (NG (r64134)) — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
ko1c-failure@atdot.net wrote:
[#88305] [Ruby trunk Bug#14968] [PATCH] io.c: make all pipes nonblocking by default — normalperson@...
Issue #14968 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
[#88331] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — samuel@...
Issue #13618 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams).
[#88342] [Ruby trunk Feature#14955] [PATCH] gc.c: use MADV_FREE to release most of the heap page body — ko1@...
Issue #14955 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
[#88433] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — ko1@...
Issue #13618 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
ko1@atdot.net wrote:
[#88475] [Ruby trunk Misc#14937] [PATCH] thread_pthread: lazy-spawn timer-thread only on contention — ko1@...
Issue #14937 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
[#88491] Re: [ruby-cvs:71466] k0kubun:r64374 (trunk): test_function.rb: skip running test — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
k0kubun@ruby-lang.org wrote:
I see. Please remove the test if the test is unnecessary.
Takashi Kokubun <takashikkbn@gmail.com> wrote:
[#88523] [Ruby trunk Bug#14999] ConditionVariable doesn't reacquire the Mutex if Thread#kill-ed — eregontp@...
Issue #14999 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
eregontp@gmail.com wrote:
[#88549] [Ruby trunk Bug#14999] ConditionVariable doesn't reacquire the Mutex if Thread#kill-ed — eregontp@...
Issue #14999 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
[#88676] [Ruby trunk Misc#15014] thread.c: use rb_hrtime_scalar for high-resolution time operations — ko1@...
Issue #15014 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
ko1@atdot.net wrote:
On 2018/08/27 16:16, Eric Wong wrote:
[#88716] Re: [ruby-dev:43715] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #595] Fiber ignores ensure clause — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Koichi Sasada wrote:
[#88723] [Ruby trunk Bug#15041] [PATCH] cont.c: set th->root_fiber to current fiber at fork — ko1@...
Issue #15041 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
[#88767] [Ruby trunk Bug#15050] GC after forking with fibers crashes — ko1@...
Issue #15050 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
Koichi Sasada <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#88774] Re: [ruby-alerts:8955] failure alert on trunk@P895 (NG (r64594)) — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
ko1c-failure@atdot.net wrote:
[ruby-core:88269] [Ruby trunk Feature#14951] New operator to evaluate truthy/falsy/logical equivalence
Issue #14951 has been updated by danga (Dan Garubba). After getting the feedback here, I no longer support my original proposal. But I would be happy if something like `Object#iff?` existed instead. I think logical equivalence is a legitimate use case. And orthogonal expressions for logical equivalence require some degree of conversion to boolean singletons, which seems to be generally viewed as anti-idiomatic in Ruby. But if the community thinks this use case is too narrow, I'll just have to live with those truthy-safe orthogonal expressions, or more type discipline for boolean equality expressions. ---------------------------------------- Feature #14951: New operator to evaluate truthy/falsy/logical equivalence https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14951#change-73293 * Author: danga (Dan Garubba) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Target version: ---------------------------------------- I propose adding a new operator for truthy/falsy equivalence, similar to what was proposed on https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13067, but with new syntax. The main purpose would be for writing expressions for logical equivalence (i.e., "if and only if" relationships) that only considers the truthiness the operands. Since predicate methods like `File#size?` and operators like `=~` follow truthy semantics without returning the `true` and `false` singletons, using them in logical expressions that evaluate for logical equivalence can be error-prone without the proper return type awareness and conversions. This proposed operator would be equivalent to `!!a == !!b`, but I feel that a new operator would be more concise and more expressive of the concept of logical equivalence. Attached is a prototype implementation of the operator as '=?'. ---Files-------------------------------- teq.patch (3.47 KB) -- 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>