Ruby master - Bug #16395: .any? and .all? methods, flawed.
The dynamics of the script is simple, no explanations needed, look for yourselves:I do not think that this can be a useful issue description because there may be secondary aspect to consider for when...
View ArticleRuby master - Misc #16396: What is the reason for this behaviour of Find.find?
I can not say whether this is the case or not (I work only on Linux), also due to me using Dir[] preferentially instead. With Dir[] I always make sure to have a trailing '/' token if I wish to work...
View ArticleRuby master - Bug #16409: Ruby User's Guide 404
I think the tracker is ok since it is the official ruby-site. "Bug", though, usually refers to ruby itself (e. g. MRI ruby written in C and compiled); might be put into Misc here, but it's not really...
View ArticleRuby master - Feature #16411: Safer keyword argument extension
I don't think adding **!? would be a good idea. I'd also ideally keep the complexity in ruby less, when possible; it's (to me) interesting to see that keywords add to the complexity. Ideally it should...
View ArticleRuby master - Bug #14413: `-n` and `-p` flags break when stdout is closed
My comment here is not primarily related to the threadstarter's comment, but indirectly. I am struggling a little bit in a cgi/www environment where debug is a bit difficult. The log files (from...
View ArticleRuby master - Feature #16420: Warning[:experimental]=false
Although I can not say whether the specific API proposed here is useful or not (matz may just have to decide on the API for general use), I agree with the statement of controlling/toggling the "noise"...
View ArticleRuby master - Feature #16425: Add Thread#dig
I think the use case has been described and ruby users may agree that this could be an improvement (e. g. such as the example given by nobu for more succinct code).#dig on Array, Hash and Struct makes...
View ArticleRuby master - Feature #16428: Add Array#uniq?, Enumerable#uniq?
I often need to check if an array have duplicate elements.Makes sense to me; I have had situations where I needed this too in the past (including situations for non-unique entries in an Array), so I...
View ArticleRuby master - Feature #16431: Optionally load did_you_mean (and RubyGems)
While I agree on the situation at hand (being able to use did you mean or disable it at the discretion of the user), I think there was a wrong filing in the linked issue in that the suggestion of the...
View ArticleRuby master - Bug #16427: Revert did_you_mean promotion to default gem.
I think the issue is that the filing is about reverting the promotion to default gems, which is different to the use case of making it (or what a ruby user wants to use) more flexible.The ideal...
View ArticleRuby master - Misc #16436: hash missing #last method, make it not so...
sawa wrote:What is this issue? Is it just a note to everyone, or are you claiming this to be a bug, or is it a feature request?I think it could only possibly be a feature request since it is not a bug....
View ArticleRuby master - Bug #16440: Date range inclusion behaviors are inconsistent
I have no strong opinion either way but I can understand the assumption by st0012 to some extent. For example, I personally always seem to think more about .include? than .cover?, largely because I...
View ArticleRuby master - Feature #16441: Enumerable#take_while_after
This is of course only my personal opinion, but I believe that long names can be somewhat problematic. Now I myself use really very long method names, but for ruby as a "basic building block" (that is...
View ArticleRuby master - Misc #16444: What is the reason for the warning of IRB?
Agreed for compatibility - may be better to retain the old behaviour as-is.I believe it was not a deliberate change but an oversight since the author of reline here on the issue tracker also mentioned...
View ArticleRuby master - Feature #16446: Enumerable#take_*, Enumerable#drop_*...
I have not thought about the proposal here quite much so far, sorry (and admittedly I may need to do so on a fresh morning as I am a bit tired).Just two brief comments:Some of the examples remind me a...
View ArticleRuby master - Feature #16451: Special ternary operator for methods ending in `?`
I am slightly against this proposal.To me personally it does not make a lot of sense to differ between the trailing character of a method in regards to the ternary operator. IMO the ternary operator...
View ArticleRuby master - Feature #16460: External names for keyword parameters in method...
A suggested syntax might be def name(external_name internal_name:) Isn't this syntax already reserved/used for keyword arguments?Here is an example from Crystal (which has syntax very similar to...
View ArticleRuby master - Misc #16464: Which core objects should support...
I think when possible every object should support deconstructing IF it makes sense. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it can be dequacked (deconstructed like a duck).I guess one question...
View ArticleRuby master - Feature #16463: Fixing *args-delegation in Ruby 2.7:...
Sorry for the semi off-topic comment. Personally I switched back to ruby 2.6.5p114 for the time being, mostly due to my own laziness. I do not use keyword arguments in my own code base, but I had...
View ArticleRuby master - Bug #16475 (Closed): [Installation process - compiling ruby...
Hello ruby core team (and everyone else),I have a slight oddity; it seems to be not hugely important, as it seems minor, but I will report it anyway just in case. Please disregard/close if this has...
View Article