An inconsistency in the docs for Proc#arity ? Here's what ri says:
arguments. A +proc+ with no argument declarations returns -1, as it
can accept (and ignore) an arbitrary number of parameters.
Proc.new {}.arity #=> 0
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.9.0 (2004-11-08) [i686-linux]
[...]
* eval.c (proc_arity): arity is now defined as number of
parameters that would not be ignored. i.e. Proc.new{}.arity
returns zero. update test suites too.
http://rcrchive.net/rcr/show/227
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 04:22:24PM +0900, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
An inconsistency in the docs for Proc#arity ? Here's what ri says:
arguments. A +proc+ with no argument declarations returns -1, as it
can accept (and ignore) an arbitrary number of parameters.Proc.new {}.arity #=> 0
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.9.0 (2004-11-08) [i686-linux]
Thu Mar 18 16:22:38 2004 Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>
--
Hassle-free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/
Hi,
In message "Re: [DOCBUG] Proc#arity" on Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:19:25 +0900, Mauricio Fernández <batsman.geo@yahoo.com> writes:
An inconsistency in the docs for Proc#arity ? Here's what ri says:
arguments. A +proc+ with no argument declarations returns -1, as it
can accept (and ignore) an arbitrary number of parameters.
* eval.c (proc_arity): arity is now defined as number of
parameters that would not be ignored. i.e. Proc.new{}.arity
returns zero. update test suites too.
And lambda{}.call(1) should have made to raise exception. I will fix
this. Could somebody update the document?
matz.
Quoteing matz@ruby-lang.org, on Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 06:43:32PM +0900:
In message "Re: [DOCBUG] Proc#arity" > on Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:19:25 +0900, Mauricio Fernández <batsman.geo@yahoo.com> writes:
>> An inconsistency in the docs for Proc#arity ? Here's what ri says:
>>
>> arguments. A +proc+ with no argument declarations returns -1, as it
>> can accept (and ignore) an arbitrary number of parameters.> * eval.c (proc_arity): arity is now defined as number of
> parameters that would not be ignored. i.e. Proc.new{}.arity
> returns zero. update test suites too.And lambda{}.call(1) should have made to raise exception. I will fix
this. Could somebody update the document?
If I understand this correctly, the docs should now say something like
the below?
Cheers,
Sam
RCS file: /src/ruby/eval.c,v
retrieving revision 1.616.2.68
diff -u -r1.616.2.68 eval.c
--- eval.c 12 Nov 2004 06:06:12 -0000 1.616.2.68
+++ eval.c 14 Nov 2004 16:26:35 -0000
@@ -8207,15 +8207,14 @@
* call-seq:
* prc.arity -> fixnum
*
- * Returns the number of arguments required by the block. If the block
+ * Returns the number of arguments that would not be ignored. If the block
* is declared to take no arguments, returns 0. If the block is known
* to take exactly n arguments, returns n. If the block has optional
* arguments, return -n-1, where n is the number of mandatory
- * arguments. A <code>proc</code> with no argument declarations
- * returns -1, as it can accept (and ignore) an arbitrary number of
- * parameters.
+ * arguments. A <code>proc</code> with no argument declarations
+ * is handled like a block declaring <code>||</code> as its arguments.
*
- * Proc.new {}.arity #=> -1
+ * Proc.new {}.arity #=> 0
* Proc.new {||}.arity #=> 0
* Proc.new {|a|}.arity #=> 1
* Proc.new {|a,b|}.arity #=> 2
Matz:
The document is simply the comment before the method- 
Cheers
Dave
On Nov 14, 2004, at 3:43, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
And lambda{}.call(1) should have made to raise exception. I will fix
this. Could somebody update the document?
Hi,
In message "Re: [DOCBUG] Proc#arity" on Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:18:53 +0900, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> writes:
Could somebody update the document?
Matz:
The document is simply the comment before the method-
I know. I was just too lazy to make up "proper" statement.
matz.
Hi,
In message "Re: [DOCBUG] Proc#arity" on Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:29:21 +0900, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> writes:
If I understand this correctly, the docs should now say something like
the below?
Thank you!
matz.