knu (Akinori MUSHA)
- Login: knu
- Email: knu@ruby-lang.org
- Registered on: 04/28/2008
- Last sign in: 07/10/2025
Issues
Projects
Project |
Roles |
Registered on |
Ruby |
Committer |
04/28/2008 |
Like
07/10/2025
-
08:51 AM
Ruby
Feature #21386: Introduce `Enumerable#join_map`
- FWIW, this function is called `mapconcat` in Emacs: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Mapping...
knu (Akinori MUSHA)
07/09/2025
-
04:57 AM
Ruby
Bug #21396: Set#initialize should call Set#add on items passed in
- Jeremy, thanks for the reply.
Your point about thread-safety is well taken. It is an important advantage. As a p...
knu (Akinori MUSHA)
07/08/2025
-
03:10 PM
Ruby
Bug #21375: Set[] does not call #initialize
- I'm leaning toward making Set subclass-friendly again. That's how I've always wanted Set to be (unlike Array and Has...
knu (Akinori MUSHA)
-
02:57 PM
Ruby
Bug #21396: Set#initialize should call Set#add on items passed in
- Considering the feedback we've received about compatibility in the new experimental Set implementation, it may be in ...
knu (Akinori MUSHA)
06/05/2025
-
01:43 PM
Ruby
Bug #21396: Set#initialize should call Set#add on items passed in
- I've always created custom variants of Set too, and I don't think it's rare to find these in in-house codebases.
knu (Akinori MUSHA)
-
01:31 PM
Ruby
Bug #21376: Inconsistent equality between Sets with different compare_by_identity, different classes
- This bug in optimization in Set#== deserves to be fixed, I think. In hindsight, adding Set#compare_by_identity might...
knu (Akinori MUSHA)
-
12:30 PM
Ruby
Feature #21390: Deprecate passing arguments to Set#to_set and Enumerable#to_set
- I can agree with this. As it turned out, subclassing the Set class did not become very common, so I think it's fine ...
knu (Akinori MUSHA)
04/15/2025
-
03:16 AM
Ruby
Feature #21216: Implement Set as a core class
- This is wonderful, and I feel like I should have done this long ago.
Here's some thoughts.
Set was initially de...
knu (Akinori MUSHA)
09/10/2024
-
01:22 PM
Ruby
Feature #18368: Range#step semantics for non-Numeric ranges
- The compatibility with `(:a .. :z).step(3)` has also been restored.
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/11573
knu (Akinori MUSHA)
08/22/2024
-
03:11 AM
Ruby
Feature #18368: Range#step semantics for non-Numeric ranges
- If we take this compatibility as important and go with it, should we give up `("a".."aaaa").step("a")` or support it?
knu (Akinori MUSHA)
Also available in: Atom
Loading...