https://redmine.ruby-lang.org/https://redmine.ruby-lang.org/favicon.ico?17113305112020-07-31T07:39:15ZRuby Issue Tracking SystemRuby master - Bug #17094: PTY methods with blockshttps://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/17094?journal_id=868622020-07-31T07:39:15Znobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada)nobu@ruby-lang.org
<ul></ul><p>As it can be incompatible only when passing a lambda, I don't think it is a serious problem.</p> Ruby master - Bug #17094: PTY methods with blockshttps://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/17094?journal_id=868842020-08-01T10:31:23Zsoutaro (Soutaro Matsumoto)matsumoto@soutaro.com
<ul></ul><p>Runtime testing of RBS uncovered this issue.</p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/ruby/rbs/pull/346#issuecomment-665817340" class="external">https://github.com/ruby/rbs/pull/346#issuecomment-665817340</a></p>
<p>The RDoc implies the type of <code>(*String) { (IO, IO) -> void } -> void</code>, but the implementation is <code>(*String) { ([IO, IO]) -> void } -> void</code>. And runtime type checking detected the issue.</p>
<p>Maybe we can fix the RBS runtime type checking then.</p> Ruby master - Bug #17094: PTY methods with blockshttps://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/17094?journal_id=871752020-08-24T23:11:08Zjeremyevans (Jeremy Evans)code@jeremyevans.net
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>Open</i> to <i>Closed</i></li></ul><p>Applied in changeset <a class="changeset" title="Update PTY.open documentation to document it yields a single argument [ci skip] For a regular bl..." href="https://redmine.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby-master/repository/git/revisions/9e25eb308d4fae9a10e120c2b4601916cc38336c">git|9e25eb308d4fae9a10e120c2b4601916cc38336c</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>Update PTY.open documentation to document it yields a single argument [ci skip]</p>
<p>For a regular block, accepting two arguments is fine as the array<br>
will be autosplatted. However, a lambda that accepts two arguments<br>
will not work.</p>
<p>We could change the implementation to yield two arguments instead<br>
of an array with a single argument, but that would be less backwards<br>
compatible.</p>
<p>I'm only changing the call-seq to be precise, other examples pass<br>
a literal block that accepts two arguments, and I left those alone<br>
as that will be the most common usage.</p>
<p>Fixes [Bug <a class="issue tracker-1 status-5 priority-4 priority-default closed" title="Bug: PTY methods with blocks (Closed)" href="https://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/17094">#17094</a>]</p> Ruby master - Bug #17094: PTY methods with blockshttps://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/17094?journal_id=871762020-08-25T01:46:30Zsawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada)
<ul><li><strong>Description</strong> updated (<a title="View differences" href="/journals/87176/diff?detail_id=57776">diff</a>)</li></ul>