[#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:59745] [CommonRuby - Feature #9405] [Rejected] Implicitly convert blocks to procs / remove blocks completely?

From: Nobuyoshi@...
Date: 2014-01-13 23:04:43 UTC
List: ruby-core #59745
=E3=83=81=E3=82=B1=E3=83=83=E3=83=88 #9405 =E3=81=8C Nobuyoshi Nakada =E3=
=81=AB=E3=82=88=E3=81=A3=E3=81=A6=E6=9B=B4=E6=96=B0=E3=81=95=E3=82=8C=E3=81=
=BE=E3=81=97=E3=81=9F=E3=80=82

=E3=82=B9=E3=83=86=E3=83=BC=E3=82=BF=E3=82=B9 =E3=82=92 Open =E3=81=8B=E3=
=82=89 Rejected =E3=81=AB=E5=A4=89=E6=9B=B4

It's the idea once implemented and abandoned.

----------------------------------------
Feature #9405: Implicitly convert blocks to procs / remove blocks completel=
y?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9405#change-44270

* =E4=BD=9C=E6=88=90=E8=80=85: Alexey Muranov
* =E3=82=B9=E3=83=86=E3=83=BC=E3=82=BF=E3=82=B9: Rejected
* =E5=84=AA=E5=85=88=E5=BA=A6: Normal
* =E6=8B=85=E5=BD=93=E8=80=85:=20
* =E3=82=AB=E3=83=86=E3=82=B4=E3=83=AA:=20
* =E5=AF=BE=E8=B1=A1=E3=83=90=E3=83=BC=E3=82=B8=E3=83=A7=E3=83=B3:=20
----------------------------------------
While i am think of this, here is one more proposal.

If a block appears in a place where no block can appear, convert it automat=
ically to a proc.  For example:

    p =3D do |n; s| s =3D gets; n.times do puts s end end
    t =3D {|| Time.now }

When a block takes no arguments and is written with curly braces, to distin=
guish it easily from a hash (or from a set, who knows? #5478 :)), it would =
need to open with `{||`.

---

Maybe ultimately blocks can be completely replaced by procs and lambdas fro=
m user's perspective and only existe for the compiler.  Unfortunately, for =
compatibility, this would require treating specially literal procs in metho=
d calls (differently from procs and lambdas passed as variable or expressio=
n values.  The semantics of

    foo(1) { |n| ... }

can be the following: the literal proc is converted to a block (which user =
never "sees") because it appears in a method call where no more arguments c=
an appear.



--=20
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

In This Thread

Prev Next