[#9869] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #7680, was opened at 2007-01-08 22:53

34 messages 2007/01/08
[#9871] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/08

Hi,

[#9872] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Evan Webb <evan@...> 2007/01/08

On Jan 8, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#9873] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/08

Hi,

[#9876] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — dblack@... 2007/01/09

Hi --

[#9878] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9879] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — dblack@... 2007/01/09

Hi --

[#9880] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9882] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2007/01/09

[#9885] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9887] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2007/01/09

[#9888] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/09

Evan Phoenix wrote:

[#9892] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/09

Hi,

[#9899] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/10

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#9904] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-7680 ] a block argument within a block which argument has the same name leaks — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/10

Hi,

[#9960] Scoping and locating definitions — Jos Backus <jos@...>

Consider the following:

17 messages 2007/01/18
[#9964] Re: Scoping and locating definitions — Pit Capitain <pit@...> 2007/01/19

Jos Backus schrieb:

[#9966] Re: Scoping and locating definitions — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2007/01/19

On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 06:40:03PM +0900, Pit Capitain wrote:

[#9972] Re: Scoping and locating definitions — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2007/01/19

On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 02:18:19AM +0900, Jos Backus wrote:

[#9996] new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

Hi,

50 messages 2007/01/23
[#10002] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@...42.com> 2007/01/23

SASADA Koichi wrote:

[#10003] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/23

Hi,

[#10004] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/01/23

On Jan 23, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10017] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@...42.com> 2007/01/24

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10018] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/24

Hi,

[#10024] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@...42.com> 2007/01/24

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10027] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/24

Hi,

[#10048] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2007/01/25

The more this discussion goes on, the more I worry that Joe Q Public

[#10019] stable branch policy & schedule for 1.8.6 — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>

Core developers,

29 messages 2007/01/24
[#10021] Re: stable branch policy & schedule for 1.8.6 — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/24

Akinori MUSHA wrote:

[#10032] Re: stable branch policy & schedule for 1.8.6 — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...> 2007/01/24

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#10085] Collaborative Ruby Language Specification — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>

Hi Everyone,

36 messages 2007/01/28
[#10108] Re: Collaborative Ruby Language Specification — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/01/29

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

[#10112] Re: Collaborative Ruby Language Specification — "Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel@...> 2007/01/30

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#10114] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — <noreply@...>

Patches item #8309, was opened at 2007-01-30 15:25

16 messages 2007/01/30
[#10131] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/31

[#10132] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Paulo Kh <paulo.koch@...> 2007/01/31

On 2007/01/31, at 06:07, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10137] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/01/31

Hi,

[#10139] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2007/01/31

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:19:34AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10143] Re: [ ruby-Patches-8309 ] add usage of uri.userinfo to open-uri.rb — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/02/01

Hi,

Re: String#upto edge case - empty string causes infinite loop

From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2007-01-11 15:56:08 UTC
List: ruby-core #9919
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnaud Bergeron [mailto:abergeron@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:20 PM
> To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: String#upto edge case - empty string causes infinite loop

<snip>

> > I understand your point, but I could just as well argue 
> that there is 
> > no logical successor to an empty string, and therefore it's 
> a special 
> > case. Another point to consider is that, if we have "".succ return 
> > "0", we get this result from String#upto:
> 
> I think you missunderstood something.  I don't propose it 
> returns "0" but "\000" which the character with ASCII value 0 
> (i.e. NUL).  I agree it could be some other value, but why I 
> chose this one is because that is the string with the 
> "smallest" (as determined by <) value which is bigger than "".

Hm, I guess if I think about it as null rather than 0 it makes more
sense.
 
> > "".upto(2) => ["", "0", "1", "2"]
> >
> > Either approach feels more or less arbitrary. I vote to err on the 
> > side of caution and stick with my original patch. :)
> 
> I think this issue might not be as important as I let it show 
> because this is not common code.  I still feel that ("" < 
> "".succ) == false is wrong though.
> 
> However, if succ is not going to change, then it's better to 
> have your patch than nothing.
> 
> Last but not the least.  I realize I have not provided a 
> patch for my solution.  Well here it is:
> 
> --- string.c.orig	Wed Jan 10 22:52:14 2007
> +++ string.c	Wed Jan 10 23:18:12 2007
> @@ -1392,7 +1392,6 @@
> 
>      str = rb_str_new5(orig, RSTRING(orig)->ptr, RSTRING(orig)->len);
>      OBJ_INFECT(str, orig);
> -    if (RSTRING(str)->len == 0) return str;
> 
>      sbeg = RSTRING(str)->ptr; s = sbeg + RSTRING(str)->len - 1;

I guess either one works for me. I leave it to Matz to decide which he
prefers.

Regards,

Dan


This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly 
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication 
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy 
all copies of the communication and any attachments.


In This Thread