[#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:50354] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #4085] Refinements and nested methods
From:
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date:
2012-11-30 01:42:41 UTC
List:
ruby-core #50354
In message "Re: [ruby-core:50348] [ruby-trunk - Feature #4085] Refinements and nested methods"
on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:00:34 +0900, "shugo (Shugo Maeda)" <[email protected]> writes:
|> Yes, only main.using should be available. No Module#using (for 2.0).
|
|So, the current behavior of main.using need not be changed, right?
|Technically, the current behavior of main.using is not file scope.
|The scope of main.using is from the point where using is *called at runtime* to the end of that file.
|For example,
|
|p 1 / 2 # => 0 (not refined)
|using MathN # MathN refines Fixnum#/
|p 1 / 2 # => (1/2) (refined)
|
|And a more complex example is:
|
|if false
| using MathN
|end
|p 1 / 2 #=> 0 (not refined)
In that sense, I don't think we need to change the behavior. What I
meant by "file scope" was that refinement only available until end of
the file.
|"Inside of refine blocks" means that all refinements defined in a module are activated
|in all refine blocks in that module and nested modules, right?
Yes, that what I meant.
|There are some considerations:
|
|* It may be better not to support nested module to simplify things.
| I think support for nested modules are important for refinement users, but are not so important
| for refinement authors.
I don't think nested modules are important. We can drop them, at
least for 2.0 to simplify things.
|* It may be hard to implement efficiently activation of refinements which are defined after refine blocks.
| For example,
| module M
| refine Array do
| def to_json; "[" + map { |i| i.to_json } + "]" end
| end
|
| refine Hash do
| def to_json; "{" + map { |k, v| k.to_s.dump + ":" + v.to_json } + "}" end
| end
| end
| It may be better to limit refinement activation in refine blocks to refinements to be defined by the refine blocks theselves, to simplify things. If there's no refinement activation in refine blocks, recursive methods cannot be defined, so the refinement to be defined should be activated at least.
I am not sure if I understand you correctly. I thought method look-up
should be done in run-time. So only I can say it that refinement M
will be available in both refine blocks in the above example.
|* Refinement activation in refine blocks may have the same problem as refinement-aware module_eval,
| for example in the following code:
|
| F = Proc.new { 1 / 2 }
| module M
| refine Fixnum do def /(other) quo(other) end end
| refine(Object, &F)
| end
Yes, but I consider its behavior implementation dependent.
Fundamentally you cannot expect passing proc to lambda work correctly.
|What happens if the same class is refined both in a module and another module included into that module?
|For example,
|
| class C
| def foo; p :C; end
| end
| module M1
| refine String do def foo; p :M1; super; end; end
| end
| module M2
| include M1
| refine String do def foo; p :M2; super; end; end
| end
| using M2
| C.new.foo #=> ?
|
|I think it's better to just calls M2 and C, not M1, to simplify things.
|super chain is too complex here.
I was thinking of M2->M1->C, but M2->C is simpler and acceptable.
|Charles shown an edge case.
|
|module A; refine(Numeric) { def blah; puts 'A'; super; end }; end
|module B; refine(Integer) { def blah; puts 'B'; super; end }; end
|module C; refine(Fixnum) { def blah; puts 'C'; super; end }; end
|using A; using B; using C
|1.blah
|
|Currently, only C is called, but what should happen?
|At first, I thought all blah should be called, but super in C is in scope of neither A nor B,
|it might be better not to call A and B.
|
|I'm starting to think it might be better to limit super to call only the original method in the refined class to simplify the spec.
So do you mean refined method appear only once in method look-up chain?
|For example,
|
|class X; def blah; puts 'X'; end
|module A; refine(X) { def blah; puts 'A'; super; end }; end
|module B; refine(X) { def blah; puts 'B'; super; end }; end
|module C; refine(X) { def blah; puts 'C'; super; end }; end
|using A; using B; using C
|1.blah
X.new.blah # <= do you mean X here?
|Only C and X is called in the above code.
|At first, I thought that stacking refinements and super chain are useful for aspect oriented programming.
|But refinements have no local rebinding, so it might not be a real use case of refinements.
Fair enough. If we can warn users for conflicted refinements like
above, it's even better.
matz.