[#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:50154] [ruby-trunk - Feature #4085] Refinements and nested methods
From:
"shugo (Shugo Maeda)" <redmine@...>
Date:
2012-11-26 09:34:09 UTC
List:
ruby-core #50154
Issue #4085 has been updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda).
headius (Charles Nutter) wrote:
> ko1's suggestion, as I understand it, was to add a flag to the method table (or method entry) of a refined class/method as a trigger for the call site to search refinements. While writing my blog post, I started to type the sentence "the methods defined in the refinement do not actually go on the class in question", and then I realized: why not?
>
> Currently, Ruby implementations structure the method table as a simple map from names to method bodies. If instead the method table was a map from names to collections of methods, we could use that to choose the appropriate method for a given context.
>
> So, for code like this:
>
> module X
> refine String do
> def upcase; downcase; end
> end
> end
>
> String's method table would contain an entry like this:
>
> {:upcase => {
> :default => <builtin upcase>,
> X => <upcase patched>}
> }
>
> Method lookup would then proceed as normal in all situations. The result of lookup would be a table mapping refinements to methods with a default entry if the method is defined directly on String.
It's an interesting idea.
How does method lookup work if multiple modules are used by using?
module Z
using X
using Y
"foo".upcase
end
Are both X and Y used as a key of the table in the reverse order they are used by using?
And, how does super work?
> I admit I am a bit reluctant to suggest this, because I still have concerns about the feature itself. But it would be possible for call sites to only need a reference to their calling scope (determined at parse time) to implement dynamic refinements without severe impact to normal code. Dynamic refinements, as in module_eval, would work by simply invalidating the call sites they contain.
FYI, in my new implementation (http://shugo.net/tmp/refinement_fix_1119.diff), refined methods are not stored in inline cache, so there's no need to invalidate inline cache for module_eval.
Instead, refined method invocations are slower than the implementation in the trunk HEAD.
> In any case, I would really like more time for this dialog to continue. If we push refinements into Ruby in their current form, we're not giving adequate time to flesh out the edge cases. If we push a partial implementation now, we may be making a future implementation harder and we would not be protecting ourselves from mistakes. I want to work with you to find a definition and implementation of refinements that meets requirements without punishing future Rubyists.
I'm starting to think it's not good to rush to introduce Refinements as an official feature.
What do you think of introducing Refinements as an experimental feature as Endoh-san suggested?
I don't know what does Endoh-san mean by "an experimental feature", but it may require an explicit compile option or a runtime option (e.g., require "refinements" like continuation) to enable it. If Refinements are enabled, warning should be shown not to make the current Refinements de-facto standard.
> I also must apologize for not joining the dialog sooner. This bug was filed in 2010, and the current refinements implementation was pushed to master a few months ago. We should have started discussing a long time ago.
I should also have warned people to think of Refinements sooner. Anyway, thanks for your comments.
----------------------------------------
Feature #4085: Refinements and nested methods
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/4085#change-33946
Author: shugo (Shugo Maeda)
Status: Assigned
Priority: Normal
Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Category: core
Target version: 2.0.0
=begin
As I said at RubyConf 2010, I'd like to propose a new features called
"Refinements."
Refinements are similar to Classboxes. However, Refinements doesn't
support local rebinding as mentioned later. In this sense,
Refinements might be more similar to selector namespaces, but I'm not
sure because I have never seen any implementation of selector
namespaces.
In Refinements, a Ruby module is used as a namespace (or classbox) for
class extensions. Such class extensions are called refinements. For
example, the following module refines Fixnum.
module MathN
refine Fixnum do
def /(other) quo(other) end
end
end
Module#refine(klass) takes one argument, which is a class to be
extended. Module#refine also takes a block, where additional or
overriding methods of klass can be defined. In this example, MathN
refines Fixnum so that 1 / 2 returns a rational number (1/2) instead
of an integer 0.
This refinement can be enabled by the method using.
class Foo
using MathN
def foo
p 1 / 2
end
end
f = Foo.new
f.foo #=> (1/2)
p 1 / 2
In this example, the refinement in MathN is enabled in the definition
of Foo. The effective scope of the refinement is the innermost class,
module, or method where using is called; however the refinement is not
enabled before the call of using. If there is no such class, module,
or method, then the effective scope is the file where using is called.
Note that refinements are pseudo-lexically scoped. For example,
foo.baz prints not "FooExt#bar" but "Foo#bar" in the following code:
class Foo
def bar
puts "Foo#bar"
end
def baz
bar
end
end
module FooExt
refine Foo do
def bar
puts "FooExt#bar"
end
end
end
module Quux
using FooExt
foo = Foo.new
foo.bar # => FooExt#bar
foo.baz # => Foo#bar
end
Refinements are also enabled in reopened definitions of classes using
refinements and definitions of their subclasses, so they are
*pseudo*-lexically scoped.
class Foo
using MathN
end
class Foo
# MathN is enabled in a reopened definition.
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
class Bar < Foo
# MathN is enabled in a subclass definition.
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
If a module or class is using refinements, they are enabled in
module_eval, class_eval, and instance_eval if the receiver is the
class or module, or an instance of the class.
module A
using MathN
end
class B
using MathN
end
MathN.module_eval do
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
A.module_eval do
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
B.class_eval do
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
B.new.instance_eval do
p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2)
end
Besides refinements, I'd like to propose new behavior of nested methods.
Currently, the scope of a nested method is not closed in the outer method.
def foo
def bar
puts "bar"
end
bar
end
foo #=> bar
bar #=> bar
In Ruby, there are no functions, but only methods. So there are no
right places where nested methods are defined. However, if
refinements are introduced, a refinement enabled only in the outer
method would be the right place. For example, the above code is
almost equivalent to the following code:
def foo
klass = self.class
m = Module.new {
refine klass do
def bar
puts "bar"
end
end
}
using m
bar
end
foo #=> bar
bar #=> NoMethodError
The attached patch is based on SVN trunk r29837.
=end
--
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/