[#59462] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9342][Open] [PATCH] SizedQueue#clear does not notify waiting threads in Ruby 1.9.3 — "jsc (Justin Collins)" <redmine@...>

9 messages 2014/01/02

[#59466] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9343][Open] [PATCH] SizedQueue#max= wakes up waiters properly — "normalperson (Eric Wong)" <normalperson@...>

11 messages 2014/01/02

[#59498] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9352][Open] [BUG] rb_sys_fail_str(connect(2) for [fe80::1%lo0]:3000) - errno == 0 — "kain (Claudio Poli)" <claudio@...>

10 messages 2014/01/03

[#59516] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9356][Open] TCPSocket.new does not seem to handle INTR — "charliesome (Charlie Somerville)" <charliesome@...>

48 messages 2014/01/03

[#59538] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9362][Assigned] Minimize cache misshit to gain optimal speed — "shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)" <shyouhei@...>

33 messages 2014/01/03
[#59541] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #9362][Assigned] Minimize cache misshit to gain optimal speed — Eric Wong <normalperson@...> 2014/01/04

Hi, I noticed a trivial typo in array.c, and it fails building struct.c

[#59582] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #9362][Assigned] Minimize cache misshit to gain optimal speed — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2014/01/06

Intersting challenge.

[#59583] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9367][Open] REXML::XmlDecl doesn't use user specified quotes — "bearmini (Takashi Oguma)" <bear.mini@...>

12 messages 2014/01/06

[#59642] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9384][Open] Segfault in ruby 2.1.0p0 — "cbliard (Christophe Bliard)" <christophe.bliard@...>

11 messages 2014/01/08

[#59791] About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>

A while ago I created a proof-of-concept that I intended to use in my

16 messages 2014/01/15
[#59794] Re: About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Eric Hodel <[email protected]> 2014/01/15

On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:58, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[email protected]> =

[#59808] Re: About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...> 2014/01/16

Em 15-01-2014 19:42, Eric Hodel escreveu:

[#59810] Re: About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Eric Hodel <[email protected]> 2014/01/16

On 16 Jan 2014, at 02:15, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[email protected]> =

[#59826] Re: About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...> 2014/01/17

Em 16-01-2014 19:43, Eric Hodel escreveu:

[#59832] Re: About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Eric Hodel <[email protected]> 2014/01/17

On 17 Jan 2014, at 04:22, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[email protected]> =

[ruby-core:59547] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7274] UnboundMethods should be bindable to any object that is_a?(owner of the UnboundMethod)

From: "marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)" <ruby-core@...>
Date: 2014-01-04 05:29:34 UTC
List: ruby-core #59547
Issue #7274 has been updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune).


Hi,

matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:
> OK, I misunderstood something.
> 
> In case foo is implemented in Base as in the original example, I admit that it will not cause any serious problem.
> 
> But I still have small concern.
> If you are sure foo is implemented in Base, you can retrieve foo from Base (not from Sub),
> so that you don't have to worry about redefinition.
> 
> If you are not, the code will be fragile.  It's a sign of bad code.
>
> Thus, I'd like to ask you why you want to relax?  Consistency? Any actual use-case?
> If there's actual non trivial use-case, I'd say go.

I agree. I can't really think of an actual use-case. I was asking for consistency's sake.

----------------------------------------
Feature #7274: UnboundMethods should be bindable  to any object that is_a?(owner of the UnboundMethod)
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7274#change-44084

Author: rits (First Last)
Status: Rejected
Priority: Normal
Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Category: core
Target version: next minor


=begin
as a corollary, (({UnboundMethod}))s referencing the same method name on the same owner, should be equal

currently (({UnboundMethod}))s binding is determined by the class via which they were retrieved, not the owner

 class Base; def foo; end end
 class Sub < Base; end

 base_foo = Base.instance_method :foo
 sub_foo = Sub.instance_method :foo
 sub_foo.bind(Base.new).call

(({sub_foo.owner})) is (({Base})) so there does not seem to be any reason why it's not safe for it to bind to an instance of (({Base})).

and there does not seem to be any reason for (({sub_foo})) and (({base_foo})) to be unequal, they both refer to the same method, (({foo})) on (({Base})).
=end



-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

In This Thread

Prev Next