[#83096] File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?}) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
On 2017/10/04 8:47, [email protected] wrote:
5 messages
2017/10/04
[#83100] Re: File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?})
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/10/04
Nobuyoshi Nakada <[email protected]> wrote:
[#83105] Re: File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?})
— Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
2017/10/04
On 2017/10/04 15:55, Eric Wong wrote:
[#83107] Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes? — Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@...>
Hello,
9 messages
2017/10/04
[#83113] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— "Urabe, Shyouhei" <shyouhei@...>
2017/10/05
This has been requested countless times, then rejected each and every time.
[#83129] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@...>
2017/10/05
Sorry I didn't found it on the core mail list's archive.
[#83138] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— "Urabe, Shyouhei" <shyouhei@...>
2017/10/06
Ruby has not been made of popular votes so far. You have to show us
[#83149] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/10/06
Alberto Almagro <[email protected]> wrote:
[#83200] [Ruby trunk Feature#13996] [PATCH] file.c: apply2files releases GVL — normalperson@...
Issue #13996 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
4 messages
2017/10/10
[ruby-core:83159] [Ruby trunk Feature#12533] Refinements: allow modules inclusion, in which the module can call internal methods which it defines.
From:
cardoso_tiago@...
Date:
2017-10-06 11:59:14 UTC
List:
ruby-core #83159
Issue #12533 has been updated by chucke (Tiago Cardoso). How about redefining `#include` in the context of refine as what would be expected of the new `#inject` method? I get that the semantics of module inclusion differ in both context regarding inheritance hierarchy order, but I'm still thinking from the user perspective: "if I do it, what do I expect to happen?". From this user perspective, I'd prefer an `#include` method which does what I expect, instead of yet another method (`#inject`) that I have to learn. But there might be other implications. I'm fine with whichever proposal which makes refinements more usable for meta-programming. ---------------------------------------- Feature #12533: Refinements: allow modules inclusion, in which the module can call internal methods which it defines. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12533#change-67095 * Author: chucke (Tiago Cardoso) * Status: Assigned * Priority: Normal * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) * Target version: ---------------------------------------- Right now this isn't possible: ~~~ruby module Extensions def vegetables ; potatoe ; end def potatoe ; "potatoe" ; end end module Refinary refine String do # this doesn't work include Extensions # this would work... # def vegetables ; potatoe ; end # def potatoe ; "potatoe" ; end end end using Refinary puts "tomatoe".vegetables #=> in <main>': undefined method 'vegetables' for "tomatoe":String ~~~ Wrongly reported as a bug [here](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12514). According to Shugo Maeda, this was expected behaviour. I argued that this is the way most monkey-patches work, and if Refinements can't cover the use case of inserting a custom DSL which references itself in the classes it refines, it can't fully replace monkey-patches, which I read was the main reason Refinements have been added to the language. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>