Just pushed my changes (with the added comment to IListOps.Difference as suggested by Shri).
http://github.com/nrk/ironruby/commit/722dd4d2dc233458a49f154b926ea666d2cdb324 Thanks, Daniele On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 13:43, Daniele Alessandri <suppaki...@gmail.com> wrote: > Right now I don't have access to my local repository, I think to be > able to push on github by 9:00 PM CEST (UTC+2, that's my timezone, it > should be 12:00 PM PDT). > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:39, Jim Deville <jdevi...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Daniele, >> >> If you push this out tonight, I'll pull it in tomorrow. >> >> JD >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- >>> boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Shri Borde >>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 9:58 PM >>> To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org >>> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] More fixes for core/array specs (again) >>> >>> Looks great! >>> >>> Could you copy the comment "# MRI follows hashing semantics here, so >>> doesn't actually call eql?/hash for Fixnum/Symbol" from >>> core\array\minus_spec.rb to IListOps.Difference as its not obvious why >>> the code in IListOps.Difference does the complicated checks. >>> >>> Yes, it seems OK that you can call all the Array methods on >>> System::Collections::ArrayList (and any System::Collectinos::IList >>> object in general). We are exposing Ruby String methods on >>> System::String, and it would be consistent with that approach. >>> >>> About List<T>.Reverse, you could argue that if you use Ruby casing of >>> "reverse", IListOps should get precedence. Could you open a bug for >>> this please? If you use "Reverse", then the CLR method should get >>> precedence, and there would be a possibility of confusion, but as you >>> say, there is not much that can be done. It does not seem worth >>> special-casing. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Shri >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- >>> boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Daniele Alessandri >>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:46 PM >>> To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org >>> Subject: [Ironruby-core] More fixes for core/array specs (again) >>> >>> Hi, >>> I have attached a diff with new fixes for a whole bunch of failing >>> expectations in the core/array specs. >>> >>> * Slightly modified IListOps.UniqueSelf as suggested upon review. >>> * Fixed IListOps.ReverseIndex as Array#rindex should not fail if >>> elements are removed from the array during the iteration over its >>> elements. >>> * Changed IListOps.Reverse to return IList instances of the same type >>> of the given self argument (this change also fixes the following >>> failing spec: "Array#reverse returns subclass instance on Array >>> subclasses") >>> * Changed IListOps.SetElement to make it try to invoke #to_ary on its >>> argument for multi-element sets. >>> * Changed one overload of IListOps.Equals to make it try to call >>> #to_ary on the object argument of Array#== and use the resulting array >>> as the actual argument for the equality check. >>> * Cleaning up tags removing expectations that do not fail anymore. >>> * Added ArrayOps.ToAry as Array#to_a and Array#to_ary behave >>> differently on subclasses of arrays. >>> * Various changes to IListOps.Join to clear all of the remaining tags >>> for the specs of Array#join. The tags marked as critical in >>> join_tags.txt are not related to pending bugs for Array#join. >>> * Changed IListOps.Repetition to return IList instances of the same >>> type of the given self argument (this fixes also "Array#* with an >>> integer returns subclass instance with Array subclasses") >>> * Modified IListOps.RecursiveJoin to make it flag the resulting string >>> as tainted if the given array, at least one of its elements or the >>> separator string are tainted. >>> * IListOps.Difference now uses Object#hash and Object#eql? to check for >>> object equality, this fixes the failing spec "Array#- acts as if using >>> an intermediate hash to collect values" >>> >>> These changes directly clear the following failing expectations: >>> >>> Array#[]= calls to_ary on its rhs argument for multi-element sets >>> Array#== calls to_ary on its argument Array#join tries to convert the >>> passed seperator to a String using #to_str Array#join checks whether >>> the passed seperator responds to #to_str Array#join handles recursive >>> arrays Array#join does not consider taint of either the array or the >>> separator when the array is empty Array#join returns a string which >>> would be infected with taint of the array, its elements or the >>> separator when the array is not empty Array#join does not process the >>> separator if the array is empty Array#join raises a TypeError if the >>> passed separator is not a string and does not respond to #to_str >>> Array#- acts as if using an intermediate hash to collect values >>> Array#* with an integer returns subclass instance with Array subclasses >>> Array#* with an integer copies the taint status of the original array >>> even if the array is empty >>> Array#* with an integer copies the taint status of the original array >>> if the passed count is not 0 >>> Array#* with a string returns a string which would be infected with >>> taint of the array, its elements or the separator when the array is not >>> empty Array#reverse returns subclass instance on Array subclasses >>> Array#rindex does not fail when removing elements from block >>> >>> I have only a question: I've made changes to IListOps.Reverse and >>> IListOps.Repetition in order to make them return IList instead of >>> RubyArray. In ruby, Array#reverse and Array#* maintain the same type of >>> self for the returning object (that is, if self is a RubyArray.Subclass >>> then it is returned a new object of the same type). >>> With these changes we would actually be able to do something like >>> this: >>> >>> >>> arraylist = System::Collections::ArrayList.new([1,2,3,4,5]) >>> => [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] >>> >>> multiplied_arraylist = arraylist * 2 >>> => [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] >>> >>> multiplied_arraylist.class >>> => System::Collections::ArrayList >>> >>> Would it be a consistent behaviour? >>> >>> On a (partially) unrelated note, I've just noticed that List<T>.Reverse >>> is more like Array#reverse! but it actually take the precedence over >>> IListOps.Reverse. I'm just thinking if this could lead to some sort of >>> confusion (ohan I'm not sure if anything can be done about this. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Daniele >>> >>> >>> PS: I'm waiting to push these changes on my remote repository, Jim told >>> he is going to pull today but I would like to wait for a review first >>> (and yeah, today I'm too lazy to actually start off a new branch :-)). >>> >>> -- >>> Daniele Alessandri >>> http://www.clorophilla.net/blog/ >>> http://twitter.com/JoL1hAHN >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ironruby-core mailing list >>> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ironruby-core mailing list >> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core >> > > > > -- > Daniele Alessandri > http://www.clorophilla.net/blog/ > http://twitter.com/JoL1hAHN > -- Daniele Alessandri http://www.clorophilla.net/blog/ http://twitter.com/JoL1hAHN _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
