[#97086] [Ruby master Bug#16612] Enumerator::ArithmeticSequence#last with float range produces incorrect value — muraken@...
Issue #16612 has been updated by mrkn (Kenta Murata).
4 messages
2020/02/07
[#97095] [PATCH] Modify shebang of libexec/y2racc and libexec/racc2y. — Wang Mingyu <wangmy@...>
change /usr/local/bin/ruby to /usr/bin/env ruby.
3 messages
2020/02/08
[#97307] [Ruby master Feature#16663] Add block or filtered forms of Kernel#caller to allow early bail-out — headius@...
Issue #16663 has been reported by headius (Charles Nutter).
29 messages
2020/02/28
[ruby-core:97089] [Ruby master Feature#16615] Group style access scope for macros
From:
shevegen@...
Date:
2020-02-07 12:48:37 UTC
List:
ruby-core #97089
Issue #16615 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler). The suggestion is fairly short; might help to expand a bit, in particular why it would be necessary/useful. Two comments from me in regards to the proposal: 1) Is there a defining difference towards e. g. the attr* family? Perhaps I missed this in the proposal, but it should be remembered, even more so as this may become a question to newcomers for ruby - see the old questio about "Symbol versus String" and strange add-ons such as HashWithIndifferentAccess. 2) I believe the name "macro" is an awkward name. I am not sure that name should be added, but even more importantly the relatedness to 1) should be considered. (The public versus private distinction in ruby is not a strong one, due to ruby's dynamic nature and philosophy. I understand why the distinction is there, but personally I very, very rarely use public/private ever; if then mostly just to portray intention to others in a libary, but even then I often wonder whether this is even necessary. I think it then comes down a lot to the personal preferences of a given ruby user more than anything else.). ---------------------------------------- Feature #16615: Group style access scope for macros https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16615#change-84195 * Author: ted (Ted Johansson) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Given a method `.macro`, which defines an instance method `#bar` on a class, and returns the defined method's name as a symbol (`:bar`). ``` class Foo private macro :bar # On evaluation defines a method and returns its name. end ``` it would be neat if the dynamically defined instance method respected the scope in which its definition originated. (In this particular case `private`.) Note: I am aware that inline access scopes already work for dynamically defined methods, as they merely accept a symbol as an argument. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>