[#9382] the sign of a number is omitted when squaring it. -2**2 vs (-2)**2 — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #6468, was opened at 2006-11-03 17:25

9 messages 2006/11/03

[#9385] merge YARV into Ruby — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

Hi,

42 messages 2006/11/04
[#9405] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — "Kirill Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...> 2006/11/06

On 11/4/06, SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:

[#9406] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2006/11/06

On Monday 06 November 2006 16:01, Kirill Shutemov wrote:

[#9417] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — Sean Russell <ser@...> 2006/11/06

On Monday 06 November 2006 10:15, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:

[#9428] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — "Kirill Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...> 2006/11/06

On 11/6/06, Sean Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:

[#9402] fast mutexes for 1.8? — MenTaLguY <mental@...>

Many people have been using Thread.critical for locking because Ruby

24 messages 2006/11/06

[#9450] Bikeshed: No more Symbol < String? — Kornelius Kalnbach <murphy@...>

Hi ruby-core!

21 messages 2006/11/07
[#9452] Re: Bikeshed: No more Symbol < String? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/11/07

Hi,

[#9493] Future Plans for Ruby 1.8 Series — URABE Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

This week Japanese rubyists were talking about the future of ruby_1_8

13 messages 2006/11/09

[#9515] External entropy pool for random number generator — "Kirill Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...>

In the attachment patch which allow to use external entropy pool for

13 messages 2006/11/11
[#9522] Re: External entropy pool for random number generator — "Nobuyoshi Nakada" <nobu@...> 2006/11/13

Hi,

[#9554] Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>

I've been thinking about how version numbers are restricting what we can do.

30 messages 2006/11/16
[#9561] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/11/16

[#9563] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...> 2006/11/16

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:

[#9564] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/11/16

On Nov 16, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Hugh Sasse wrote:

[#9571] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2006/11/19

On 11/16/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

[#9604] #ancestors never includes the singleton class (inconsistent) — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #6820, was opened at 2006-11-22 08:49

12 messages 2006/11/22
[#9618] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-6820 ] #ancestors never includes the singleton class (inconsistent) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/11/25

Hi,

[#9629] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-6820 ] #ancestors never includes the singleton class (inconsistent) — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2006/11/27

> It is supposed to. Singleton classes (or eigenclasses, if you want to

Re: No more Symbol < String?

From: Kornelius Kalnbach <murphy@...>
Date: 2006-11-07 18:01:41 UTC
List: ruby-core #9463
David wrote:
> Is "bikeshed" shorthand for "unimportant"? :-)
No, it should mean: "Low-Tech Discussion on Ruby, please accelerate". It
was the first bikeshed example in matz' keynote for RubyConf 2006.
But my mail client seems to think that this is spam (wanna buy a
b1ke5hed?), so my prefix idea (like [TINY] for Rails patches) may be  
bad.
I removed it.

Back to topic. matz wrote:
> Even though it is highly against DuckTyping, people tend to use case
> on classes, and Symbol < String often cause serious problems.  I found
> several of these even in the standard distribution libraries.
Yes, I also used "case String" in one of my libraries. The Ruby 1.8  
and 1.9
compatible fix was very simple: "instance_of?". I don't have to change
that now. It still seems to be a very reliable solution.

And Duck Typing won't help: Both String and Symbol respond_to :to_str,
even now. I don't ask to remove Symbol#to_str, it seems justified,  
but it
also means that String and Symbol quack the same melody.

After thinking about it, I really like the idea of "automagically"  
created
Symbols by freezing Strings. We have Fixnum<>Bignum behind the scenes  
(which
is only for performance and memory reasons AFAIK), and the  
Symbol<>String
problem is alike.

When I use Symbols, I care about five things, ordered by importance:

- easy writing (:bla)
- they save their textual value somehow (for to_s and inspect)
- they are distinguishable from Strings in some easy and obvious way
- they save memory (singletons)
- performance (comparison and hashing are fast)

As a programmer, I don't care about:

- how they are represented internally
- the value of object_id (never used it!)
- whether they are mutable or frozen
- how Sring and Symbol are related in the class hierarchy

That's just my opinion. The Symbol <=> String issue seems to be a  
matter of
how people are using them in 1.8. So, your idea of looking at stdlibs is
very good, I think.

The current solution works for me. I'm sure we will find the best way.
[murphy]

In This Thread