[#58149] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9076][Open] New one-argument block syntax: &. — "asterite (Ary Borenszweig)" <ary@...>
23 messages
2013/11/04
[#58259] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9099][Open] Train emoji lambda operator — "charliesome (Charlie Somerville)" <charliesome@...>
9 messages
2013/11/10
[#58312] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9107][Open] Introduce YES and NO as aliases of true and false — "gsamokovarov (Genadi Samokovarov)" <gsamokovarov@...>
5 messages
2013/11/13
[#58350] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9113][Open] Ship Ruby for Linux with jemalloc out-of-the-box — "sam.saffron (Sam Saffron)" <sam.saffron@...>
59 messages
2013/11/15
[#60851] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #9113][Open] Ship Ruby for Linux with jemalloc out-of-the-box
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/02/19
Btw, I also hope to experiment with a slab allocator since many internal
[#62721] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9113] Ship Ruby for Linux with jemalloc out-of-the-box
— nobu@...
2014/05/24
Issue #9113 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.
[#62735] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9113] Ship Ruby for Linux with jemalloc out-of-the-box
— normalperson@...
2014/05/25
Issue #9113 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#58391] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9119][Assigned] TestTime#test_marshal_broken_offset broken under MinGW — "luislavena (Luis Lavena)" <luislavena@...>
10 messages
2013/11/17
[#58396] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9121][Open] [PATCH] Remove rbtree implementation of SortedSet due to performance regression — "xshay (Xavier Shay)" <contact@...>
15 messages
2013/11/18
[#58404] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9123][Open] Make Numeric#nonzero? behavior consistent with Numeric#zero? — "sferik (Erik Michaels-Ober)" <sferik@...>
40 messages
2013/11/18
[#58411] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9124][Open] TestSocket errors in test-all on Arch 64-bit — "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>
14 messages
2013/11/18
[#58515] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9124] TestSocket errors in test-all on Arch 64-bit
— "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>
2013/11/23
[#58841] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9124] TestSocket errors in test-all on Arch 64-bit
— "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>
2013/12/04
[#58842] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #9124] TestSocket errors in test-all on Arch 64-bit
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2013/12/04
"jonforums (Jon Forums)" <[email protected]> wrote:
[#58452] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9133][Open] logger rotates log files more than expected — "no6v (Nobuhiro IMAI)" <nov@...>
8 messages
2013/11/21
[#58473] Object identity for string hash keys — Andrew Vit <andrew@...>
I'm not sure if this is a bug. I'm creating a hash like this:
5 messages
2013/11/21
[#58490] Re: [ruby-cvs:50910] drbrain:r43767 (trunk): * lib/rubygems: Update to RubyGems master 50a8210. Important changes — Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
2013/11/22 <[email protected]>:
4 messages
2013/11/22
[#58492] Re: [ruby-cvs:50910] drbrain:r43767 (trunk): * lib/rubygems: Update to RubyGems master 50a8210. Important changes
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2013/11/22
Tanaka Akira <[email protected]> wrote:
[#58496] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9140][Open] Allow each_with_index to get start index — "rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)" <rr.rosas@...>
8 messages
2013/11/22
[#58545] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9145][Open] Queue#pop(true) return nil if empty instead of raising ThreadError — "jsc (Justin Collins)" <redmine@...>
9 messages
2013/11/24
[#58599] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9159][Open] [patch] use rb_fstring for internal strings — "tmm1 (Aman Gupta)" <[email protected]>
5 messages
2013/11/26
[#58653] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9170][Open] Math.sqrt returns different types when mathn is included; breaks various gems - this bug can be reproduced in Ruby 1.8 as well — "kranzky (Jason Hutchens)" <JasonHutchens@...>
7 messages
2013/11/28
[#58719] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5446] at_fork callback API — "tmm1 (Aman Gupta)" <[email protected]>
6 messages
2013/11/30
[ruby-core:58498] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9123] Make Numeric#nonzero? behavior consistent with Numeric#zero?
From:
"mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <mame@...>
Date:
2013-11-22 13:59:47 UTC
List:
ruby-core #58498
Issue #9123 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).
I don't think it is possible to change the spec.
Many programs in the wild actually use the behavior.
https://github.com/search?q=nonzero%3F+sort+extension%3Arb&type=Code
By the way, I investigated the early history of nonzero?.
In the beginning, Nagai proposed a "<>" operator that returns -1, nil, 1
in [ruby-list:7286] (1 Apr 1998). The motivation example was:
def struct_cmp (a, b)
(a.mem_a <> a.mem_a) || (a.mem_b <=> a.mem_b)
end
Obviously he had in mind Perl's common idiom for lexicographic sort:
sort { a[0] <=> b[0] || a[1] <=> b[1] }
because it is 1998 :-)
Matz said he was negative to this proposal in [ruby-list:7286] because
it would make the language complex to add a new operator, and because
he thought that it would be better to change the boolean semantics,
that is, to handle 0 as false (!).
Nagai, in [ruby-dev:2026], disagreed with the semantic change because of
a philosophical reason (it looked weird to him to handle only one instance
of Integer as false), and reclaimed adding a new operator.
In [ruby-dev:2031], Funaba disagreed with a new operator because the
lexicographic sort is not a common operation, he thought.
He also disagreed with the semantic change because of a compatibility
issue (in spite of 1998).
And then, nonzero? appeared in the counter-proposal he made:
(a <=> b).nonzero? || (a2 <=> b2)
Matz liked and implemented the proposal in a day [ruby-dev:2046].
Because nonzero? was accepted, a "<>" operator became less significant.
Nagai, in [ruby-dev:2050], dismissed his proposal.
In the mail, he pointed the inconsistency that is now discussed in this
ticket. He asked why matz implemented not only nonzero? but also zero?.
Matz's answer was:
- symmetry of zero? and nonzero?
- lisp/scheme provides zero?
(According to this history, it makes no sense to fit nonzero? with zero?.)
Incidentally, the discussion continued, and Keiju proposed Array#<=> in
[ruby-dev:2101], that is,
[a1, a2] <=> [b1, b2]
After the further discussion, this was accepted too.
Funaba, who proposed nonzero? himself, preferred Array#<=> to nonzero?,
but also pointed out that Array#<=> is not a perfect substitute to
nonzero? because Array#<=> does not shortcut.
After that, nonzero? exists until now.
--
Yusuke Endoh <[email protected]>
----------------------------------------
Feature #9123: Make Numeric#nonzero? behavior consistent with Numeric#zero?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9123#change-43083
Author: sferik (Erik Michaels-Ober)
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Target version:
Numeric#zero? returns true or false, while Numeric#nonzero? returns self or nil.
I've written a patch that fixes this inconsistency and adds a Numeric#nonzero (non-predicate) method that returns self or nil for chaining comparisons. I'd like for this to be included in Ruby 2.1.0.
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/452.patch
--
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/