[#99115] [Ruby master Bug#17023] How to prevent String memory to be relocated in ruby-ffi — larskanis@...
Issue #17023 has been reported by larskanis (Lars Kanis).
22 messages
2020/07/10
[#99375] [Ruby master Feature#17055] Allow suppressing uninitialized instance variable and method redefined verbose mode warnings — merch-redmine@...
Issue #17055 has been reported by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans).
29 messages
2020/07/28
[#101207] [Ruby master Feature#17055] Allow suppressing uninitialized instance variable and method redefined verbose mode warnings
— merch-redmine@...
2020/12/02
Issue #17055 has been updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans).
[#101231] Re: [Ruby master Feature#17055] Allow suppressing uninitialized instance variable and method redefined verbose mode warnings
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2020/12/03
What does this mean?
[ruby-core:99174] [Ruby master Bug#17017] Range#max & Range#minmax incorrectly use Float end as max
From:
merch-redmine@...
Date:
2020-07-15 05:24:49 UTC
List:
ruby-core #99174
Issue #17017 has been updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans). koic (Koichi ITO) wrote in #note-6: > I encountered a breaking change in RuboCop repository when using ruby 2.8.0dev. > https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/blob/v0.88.0/lib/rubocop/comment_config.rb#L110 > > So, I have a question. Is this an expected behaviour? Yes, it is expected behavior, at least to me. I believe the Ruby 2.7 behavior is wrong, because a range that starts with an integer will never have a non-integer maximum value, since the increment is an integer. Range#max specifies the maximum value in the range (should be the same as range.to_a.max), not the end of the range (that is Range#end). However, my expectation may be different from matz's expectation. ---------------------------------------- Bug #17017: Range#max & Range#minmax incorrectly use Float end as max https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17017#change-86551 * Author: sambostock (Sam Bostock) * Status: Closed * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 2.8.0dev (2020-07-14T04:19:55Z master e60cd14d85) [x86_64-darwin17] * Backport: 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN, 2.7: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- While continuing to add edge cases to [`Range#minmax` specs](https://github.com/ruby/spec/pull/777), I discovered the following bug: ```ruby (1..3.1).to_a == [1, 2, 3] # As expected (1..3.1).to_a.max == 3 # As expected (1..3.1).to_a.minmax == [1, 3] # As expected (1..3.1).max == 3.1 # Should be 3, as above (1..3.1).minmax == [1, 3.1] # Should be [1, 3], as above ``` One way to detect this scenario might be to do (whatever the C equivalent is of) ```ruby range_end.is_a?(Numeric) // Is this a numeric range? && (range_end - range_begin).modulo(1) == 0 // Can we reach the range_end using the standard step size (1) ``` As for how to handle it, a couple options come to mind: - We could error out and do something similar to what we do for exclusive ranges ```ruby raise TypeError, 'cannot exclude non Integer end value' ``` - We might be able to calculate the range end by doing something like ```ruby num_steps = (range_end / range_beg).to_i - 1 # one fewer steps than would exceed the range_end max = range_beg + num_steps # take that many steps all at once ``` - We could delegate to `super` and enumerate the range to find the max ```ruby super ``` - We could update the documentation to define the max for this case as the `range_end`, similarly to how the documentation for `include?` says it behaves like `cover?` for numeric ranges. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>