[#90399] [Ruby trunk Feature#14813] [PATCH] gc.c: make gc_enter+gc_exit pairs dtrace probes, too — ko1@...
Issue #14813 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
3 messages
2018/12/10
[#90417] [Ruby trunk Bug#15398] TestThread#test_signal_at_join fails on FreeBSD — naruse@...
Issue #15398 has been reported by naruse (Yui NARUSE).
4 messages
2018/12/11
[#90423] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#15398] TestThread#test_signal_at_join fails on FreeBSD
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/12/11
[email protected] wrote:
[#90519] Spoofing warnings for mail from bugs.ruby-lang.org — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>
I'm getting a spoofing warning for emails sent from bugs.ruby-lang.org when
4 messages
2018/12/13
[#90522] Re: Spoofing warnings for mail from bugs.ruby-lang.org
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/12/13
Charles Oliver Nutter <[email protected]> wrote:
[#90533] [Ruby trunk Feature#15413] unmarkable C stack (3rd stack) — normalperson@...
Issue #15413 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
3 messages
2018/12/14
[#90581] [Ruby trunk Bug#15424] Ruby 2.6.0rc1 & 2.6.0rc2 mutex exception — mat999@...
Issue #15424 has been reported by splitice (Mathew Heard).
3 messages
2018/12/17
[#90595] [Ruby trunk Bug#15430] test_fork_while_parent_locked is failing status on Ruby CI — hsbt@...
Issue #15430 has been reported by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
3 messages
2018/12/18
[#90614] [Ruby trunk Bug#15430][Assigned] test_fork_while_parent_locked is failing status on Ruby CI — hsbt@...
Issue #15430 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
4 messages
2018/12/19
[#90630] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#15430][Assigned] test_fork_while_parent_locked is failing status on Ruby CI
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/12/20
> It still exists. https://rubyci.org/logs/rubyci.s3.amazonaws.com/centos7/ruby-trunk/log/20181218T230003Z.fail.html.gz
[#90820] Re: [ruby-cvs:73697] k0kubun:r66593 (trunk): accept_nonblock_spec.rb: skip spurious failure — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[email protected] wrote:
3 messages
2018/12/30
[ruby-core:90591] [Ruby trunk Misc#15428] Proc composition: what can quack like Proc?
From:
zverok.offline@...
Date:
2018-12-17 21:56:38 UTC
List:
ruby-core #90591
Issue #15428 has been reported by zverok (Victor Shepelev). ---------------------------------------- Misc #15428: Proc composition: what can quack like Proc? https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15428 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ---------------------------------------- I believe, that solution of #6284 introduced important language inconsistency: as far as I can tell, it insists that **anything that responds to `#call`** is composable, e.g. **quacks like `Proc`**. The problem is, previously it was **never** this way. `#call` method has a nice shortcut of `.()`, but when you wanted to tell something can quack like proc, it **always** was done by defining `#to_proc` method. I understand it could be too late to ask, but I wonder why this inconsistency was introduced and is there a plan to take this step further? For me personally, this `#call`/`#to_proc` dichotomy was always weird and feels like it needs some unification (maybe anything having `#call` will automatically have `#to_proc` method?), but the situation when exactly one language feature treats it differently looks pretty weird for me. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>