[#48729] [ANN] ruby 2.0.0-preview1 released — Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
Japanese later; 日本語はあとで
10 messages
2012/11/02
[#48977] Re: [ANN] ruby 2.0.0-preview1 released
— V咜 Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>
2012/11/06
Hi,
[#48979] Re: [ANN] ruby 2.0.0-preview1 released
— Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
2012/11/06
Hello Vit,
[#48982] Re: [ANN] ruby 2.0.0-preview1 released
— V咜 Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>
2012/11/06
2012/11/6 Yusuke Endoh <[email protected]>
[#48745] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7267][Open] Dir.glob on Mac OS X returns unexpected string encodings for unicode file names — "kennygrant (Kenny Grant)" <kennygrant@...>
17 messages
2012/11/02
[#48773] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7269][Open] Refinement doesn't work if using locate after method — "ko1 (Koichi Sasada)" <redmine@...>
12 messages
2012/11/03
[#48806] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7269] Refinement doesn't work if using locate after method
— "headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@...>
2012/11/03
[#48808] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #7269] Refinement doesn't work if using locate after method
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2012/11/03
(2012/11/03 10:11), headius (Charles Nutter) wrote:
[#48810] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #7269] Refinement doesn't work if using locate after method
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2012/11/03
(2012/11/03 10:36), SASADA Koichi wrote:
[#48774] [ruby-trunk - Feature #4085] Refinements and nested methods — "shugo (Shugo Maeda)" <redmine@...>
3 messages
2012/11/03
[#48819] [ruby-trunk - Feature #4085] Refinements and nested methods — "headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@...>
5 messages
2012/11/03
[#48820] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7271][Assigned] Refinement doesn't seem lexical — "ko1 (Koichi Sasada)" <redmine@...>
5 messages
2012/11/03
[#48847] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7274][Open] UnboundMethods should be bindable to any object that is_a?(owner of the UnboundMethod) — "rits (First Last)" <redmine@...>
21 messages
2012/11/04
[#48882] [ruby-trunk - Feature #4085] Refinements and nested methods — "headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@...>
3 messages
2012/11/05
[#48964] [Backport93 - Backport #7285][Assigned] some failures on RubyInstaller CI — "usa (Usaku NAKAMURA)" <usa@...>
5 messages
2012/11/06
[#48988] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7292][Open] Enumerable#to_h — "marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)" <ruby-core@...>
40 messages
2012/11/06
[#48997] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7297][Open] map_to alias for each_with_object — "nathan.f77 (Nathan Broadbent)" <nathan.f77@...>
19 messages
2012/11/06
[#49018] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7299][Open] Ruby should not completely ignore blocks. — "marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)" <ruby-core@...>
13 messages
2012/11/07
[#49068] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7299] Ruby should not completely ignore blocks.
— "matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)" <matz@...>
2012/11/07
[#49078] Re: [ruby-cvs:44714] marcandre:r37544 (ruby_1_9_3): merge revisions r33453, r37542: — "U.Nakamura" <usa@...>
Hello,
4 messages
2012/11/08
[#49119] ID_ALLOCATOR ? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...>
Hello.
10 messages
2012/11/08
[#49173] Re: ID_ALLOCATOR ?
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2012/11/09
Can I see ruby-prof code?
[#49174] Re: ID_ALLOCATOR ?
— Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...>
2012/11/09
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM, SASADA Koichi <[email protected]> wrote:
[#49196] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7322][Open] Add a new operator name #>< for bit-wise "exclusive or" — "alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)" <redmine@...>
18 messages
2012/11/10
[#49211] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7328][Open] Move ** operator precedence under unary + and - — "boris_stitnicky (Boris Stitnicky)" <boris@...>
20 messages
2012/11/11
[#49256] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7336][Open] Flexiable OPerator Precedence — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>
18 messages
2012/11/12
[#49267] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7340][Open] 'each_with' or 'into' alias for 'each_with_object' — "nathan.f77 (Nathan Broadbent)" <nathan.f77@...>
8 messages
2012/11/12
[#49268] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7341][Open] Enumerable#associate — "nathan.f77 (Nathan Broadbent)" <nathan.f77@...>
8 messages
2012/11/12
[#49282] Re: [ruby-cvs:44801] tenderlove:r37631 (trunk): * probes.d: add DTrace probe declarations. — "U.Nakamura" <usa@...>
Hello,
5 messages
2012/11/13
[#49284] Re: [ruby-cvs:44801] tenderlove:r37631 (trunk): * probes.d: add DTrace probe declarations.
— "U.Nakamura" <usa@...>
2012/11/13
Hello,
[#49292] Re: [ruby-cvs:44801] tenderlove:r37631 (trunk): * probes.d: add DTrace probe declarations.
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2012/11/13
2012/11/13 U.Nakamura <[email protected]>:
[#49298] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7346][Open] object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...) — "rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)" <rr.rosas@...>
7 messages
2012/11/13
[#49320] [ruby-trunk - Feature #4085] Refinements and nested methods — "headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@...>
3 messages
2012/11/13
[#49328] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7349][Open] Struct#inspect needs more meaningful output — "postmodern (Hal Brodigan)" <postmodern.mod3@...>
6 messages
2012/11/14
[#49340] bugs.ruby-lang.org - 500 error — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
Hello,
6 messages
2012/11/14
[#49341] Re: bugs.ruby-lang.org - 500 error
— Joshua Ballanco <jballanc@...>
2012/11/14
I've been unable to access it since morning EET (about 6 hours now).
[#49342] Re: bugs.ruby-lang.org - 500 error
— Zachary Scott <zachary@...>
2012/11/14
It's almost 3am in Japan now, don't forget.
[#49343] Re: bugs.ruby-lang.org - 500 error
— Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
2012/11/14
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Zachary Scott <[email protected]> w=
[#49354] review open pull requests on github — Zachary Scott <zachary@...>
Could we get a review on any open pull requests on github before the
12 messages
2012/11/15
[#49355] Re: review open pull requests on github
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2012/11/15
2012/11/15 Zachary Scott <[email protected]>:
[#49356] Re: review open pull requests on github
— Zachary Scott <zachary@...>
2012/11/15
Ok, I was hoping one of the maintainers might want to.
[#49382] Re: review open pull requests on github
— Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@...>
2012/11/15
I could add my eyes to monitor the github issues/pull requests, if only to
[#49387] Re: review open pull requests on github
— Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
2012/11/15
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Marc-Andre Lafortune
[#49388] Re: review open pull requests on github
— Zachary Scott <zachary@...>
2012/11/15
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Luis Lavena <[email protected]> wrote:
[#49391] Re: review open pull requests on github
— Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@...>
2012/11/15
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Zachary Scott <[email protected]>
[#49416] make check: missing psych — Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@...>
Hi,
7 messages
2012/11/16
[#49418] Re: make check: missing psych
— Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
2012/11/16
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
[#49419] Re: make check: missing psych
— Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@...>
2012/11/16
Luis Lavena wrote:
[#49463] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7375][Open] embedding libyaml in psych for Ruby 2.0 — "tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)" <aaron@...>
21 messages
2012/11/16
[#49494] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7375] embedding libyaml in psych for Ruby 2.0
— "vo.x (Vit Ondruch)" <v.ondruch@...>
2012/11/17
[#49497] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #7375] embedding libyaml in psych for Ruby 2.0
— Aaron Patterson <tenderlove@...>
2012/11/17
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:05:50AM +0900, vo.x (Vit Ondruch) wrote:
[#49499] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #7375] embedding libyaml in psych for Ruby 2.0
— V咜 Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>
2012/11/17
Dne 17.11.2012 21:19, Aaron Patterson napsal(a):
[#49500] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #7375] embedding libyaml in psych for Ruby 2.0
— Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...>
2012/11/17
On 17 November 2012 21:34, V=EDt Ondruch <[email protected]> wrote:
[#49524] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #7375] embedding libyaml in psych for Ruby 2.0
— Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
2012/11/18
Hello,
[#49468] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7378][Open] Adding Pathname#write — "aef (Alexander E. Fischer)" <aef@...>
6 messages
2012/11/17
[#49479] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7379][Open] Unexpected result of Kernel#gets on Windows 8 — "phasis68 (Heesob Park)" <phasis@...>
6 messages
2012/11/17
[#49518] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7383][Open] Use stricter cache check in load.c — "funny_falcon (Yura Sokolov)" <funny.falcon@...>
4 messages
2012/11/18
[#49536] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7388][Open] Object#embed — "zzak (Zachary Scott)" <zachary@...>
7 messages
2012/11/18
[#49543] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7390][Open] Funny Falcon Threads — "zzak (Zachary Scott)" <zachary@...>
4 messages
2012/11/18
[#49558] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7395][Open] Negative numbers can't be primes by definition — "zzak (Zachary Scott)" <zachary@...>
10 messages
2012/11/19
[#49868] How to stop spam from ruby-core — Heesob Park <phasis@...>
Hi,
5 messages
2012/11/22
[#49949] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7426][Assigned] Update Rdoc — "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <mame@...>
10 messages
2012/11/24
[#50198] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7426] Update Rdoc
— "drbrain (Eric Hodel)" <[email protected]>
2012/11/27
[#50202] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #7426] Update Rdoc
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2012/11/27
(2012/11/27 13:33), drbrain (Eric Hodel) wrote:
[#50203] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #7426] Update Rdoc
— Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
2012/11/27
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, SASADA Koichi <[email protected]> wrote:
[#50204] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #7426] Update Rdoc
— Eric Hodel <[email protected]>
2012/11/27
On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:09 PM, Luis Lavena <[email protected]> wrote:
[#50092] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7434][Open] Allow caller_locations and backtrace_locations to receive negative params — "sam.saffron (Sam Saffron)" <sam.saffron@...>
21 messages
2012/11/25
[#50264] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7457][Open] GC.stat to return "allocated object count" and "freed object count" — "ko1 (Koichi Sasada)" <redmine@...>
5 messages
2012/11/28
[#50306] Towards a better process for changing Ruby — Magnus Holm <judofyr@...>
Hey folks,
11 messages
2012/11/29
[#50317] Re: Towards a better process for changing Ruby
— Yorick Peterse <yorickpeterse@...>
2012/11/29
What I'd like to see is primarily better communication and release
[#50320] Re: Towards a better process for changing Ruby
— Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
2012/11/29
Hello Magnus,
[#50750] Re: Towards a better process for changing Ruby
— Magnus Holm <judofyr@...>
2012/12/11
Endoh-san,
[#50312] How to stop spam message from redmine.ruby-lang.org — Heesob Park <phasis@...>
HI,
7 messages
2012/11/29
[#50315] Re: How to stop spam message from redmine.ruby-lang.org
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2012/11/29
Hi,
[#50372] [ruby-trunk - Bug #7476][Open] missing "IP_TRANSPARENT" constant for IP sockets. — "elico (Eliezer Croitoru)" <eliezer@...>
8 messages
2012/11/30
[#52809] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7476] missing "IP_TRANSPARENT" constant for IP sockets.
— "ko1 (Koichi Sasada)" <redmine@...>
2013/02/24
[#53889] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #7476] missing "IP_TRANSPARENT" constant for IP sockets.
— Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
2013/04/02
2013/2/24 ko1 (Koichi Sasada) <[email protected]>:
[ruby-core:48809] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #4085] Refinements and nested methods
From:
Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>
Date:
2012-11-03 16:39:21 UTC
List:
ruby-core #48809
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:12 PM, shugo (Shugo Maeda) <[email protected]> wrote: > headius (Charles Nutter) wrote: > > * Refinements in modules and class hierarchies does not seem like a pro= blem to me yet. > > * Refinements are "used" in temporal order...methods added before "usin= g" won't see refinements, refinements added after "using" won't be applied.= I think this is a good thing, since it allows us to have a one-shot flag f= or refinements on methods at definition time. > > The current behavior is mainly for an implementation reason, but Matz and= ko1 seem not to like it:( I commented on ko1's bug. I see using a bit like visibility changes, only affecting methods defined later on. I understand the implementation reason as well...in order to limit the damage of refinements, your impl flags methods as having refinements active. For optimization purposes, that means we know at definition time whether we need to handle refinements at all. > > * Months ago when the original proposal came out, I expressed my concer= n about refinements applying to module_eval and friends. I still strongly o= bject to this behavior. > > I also wonder whether module_eval with blocks should be affected by refin= ements or not, but I think module_eval with strings (e.g., M.module_eval("C= .new.foo")) has no problem, right? String eval would not be a problem, that is correct. We would be able to see at eval time that the target module has refinements active. > > This is dynamic application of refinements, which has been hotly debate= d and which I *thought* was supposed to be removed. I assume it has been le= ft in because it is required to apply refinements "magically" to all-block = code like rspec. I do not see this as an excuse to introduce such an unpred= ictable feature. > > instance_eval and module_eval themselves have the same problem because th= ey change self "magically". > At first, I thought they are evil, but they are popular now. > I'd like to ask Matz's opinion. Yes, module_eval, class_eval, and instance_eval are all problematic because of the self changing, but module_eval and class_eval are especially bad if they force refinements on code that doesn't know about them. I am starting to see some intractable problems with refinements, unfortunat= ely. In order to avoid having every call in the system check for refinements, they are applied in evaluation order. However, this means that the load order of scripts can now completely change which methods get called. For example... a.rb: class Foo def go(obj) obj.something end end b.rb: class Foo using Baz # refines the "something" call end If the files are loaded in the order a, b, no refinements are applied to the something call. If b is loaded before a, refinements are applied to the something call. No other features in Ruby are so sensitive to load order (other than those that introspect classes and methods, obviously). The alternative is to have refinements not be applied temporally. However this means every call in the system needs to check for refinements every time. Given the complexity of method lookup in Ruby today, adding refinements to that process seems like a terrible idea. In order to cache a method call in the presence of refinements, we need to track all of the following: 1. whether any refinements are active 2. whether there are refinements that affect the class of the target of the method call 3. whether refinements that affect the target class redefine the target met= hod If any of these change at any time, we need to invalidate the cache. This is on top of all the information we need to do to cache methods normally. At this point I would not vote for refinements to be included in Ruby 2.0. I feel like there are far too many edge cases and implementation concerns. I will continue my investigation.