* [sup-talk] [PATCH] respond_to? needs include_private argument
@ 2008-06-18 20:25 Decklin Foster
2008-06-18 22:21 ` Richard Heycock
2008-06-19 17:55 ` William Morgan
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Decklin Foster @ 2008-06-18 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
Sup started mysteriously bailing out on me today after an apt-get
update with stuff like this:
--- ArgumentError from thread: main
wrong number of arguments (2 for 1)
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/index.rb:424:in `respond_to?'
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/index.rb:424:in `flatten'
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/index.rb:424:in `load_sources'
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/index.rb:108:in `load'
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/util.rb:497:in `send'
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/util.rb:497:in `method_missing'
/usr/bin/sup:122
I did some digging and it seems like when Array#flatten, in attempting
to figure out if it can flatten some list element recursively, sends
it :respond_to? with both arguments -- I didn't even know there was a
second one (defaults to false; see docs). But this only happened recently
or something.
Here's somewhere else this came up:
http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/154938
So, the fix is exactly the same. Should work fine on old Ruby as well.
Weep for our poor one-liner methods; they just weren't cut out for this
harsh world...
Also: Hi everyone. I am the future Debian maintainer of sup.
---
lib/sup/util.rb | 8 ++++++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/sup/util.rb b/lib/sup/util.rb
index ceaf0b8..9909022 100644
--- a/lib/sup/util.rb
+++ b/lib/sup/util.rb
@@ -108,7 +108,9 @@ class Module
def defer_all_other_method_calls_to obj
class_eval %{
def method_missing meth, *a, &b; @#{obj}.send meth, *a, &b; end
- def respond_to? meth; @#{obj}.respond_to?(meth); end
+ def respond_to?(m, include_private = false)
+ @#{obj}.respond_to?(m, include_private)
+ end
}
end
end
@@ -527,7 +529,9 @@ class Recoverable
def to_yaml x; __pass :to_yaml, x; end
def is_a? c; @o.is_a? c; end
- def respond_to? m; @o.respond_to? m end
+ def respond_to?(m, include_private=false)
+ @o.respond_to?(m, include_private)
+ end
def __pass m, *a, &b
begin
--
1.5.5.3
--
Decklin Foster <dfoster at wjh.harvard.edu>
1208 William James Hall - Affective Neuroscience Lab
806 WJH, Social Neuroscience and Psychopathology Lab
Home: decklin at red-bean.com / Mobile: +1 860 978 4848
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] [PATCH] respond_to? needs include_private argument
2008-06-18 20:25 [sup-talk] [PATCH] respond_to? needs include_private argument Decklin Foster
@ 2008-06-18 22:21 ` Richard Heycock
2008-06-19 0:35 ` Richard Heycock
2008-06-19 17:55 ` William Morgan
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Richard Heycock @ 2008-06-18 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
Are you using ruby 1.8.7? I found this.
rgh
Excerpts from Decklin Foster's message of Thu Jun 19 06:25:56 +1000 2008:
> Sup started mysteriously bailing out on me today after an apt-get
> update with stuff like this:
>
> --- ArgumentError from thread: main
> wrong number of arguments (2 for 1)
> /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/index.rb:424:in `respond_to?'
> /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/index.rb:424:in `flatten'
> /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/index.rb:424:in `load_sources'
> /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/index.rb:108:in `load'
> /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/util.rb:497:in `send'
> /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/sup/util.rb:497:in `method_missing'
> /usr/bin/sup:122
>
> I did some digging and it seems like when Array#flatten, in attempting
> to figure out if it can flatten some list element recursively, sends
> it :respond_to? with both arguments -- I didn't even know there was a
> second one (defaults to false; see docs). But this only happened recently
> or something.
>
> Here's somewhere else this came up:
> http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/154938
>
> So, the fix is exactly the same. Should work fine on old Ruby as well.
> Weep for our poor one-liner methods; they just weren't cut out for this
> harsh world...
>
> Also: Hi everyone. I am the future Debian maintainer of sup.
>
> ---
> lib/sup/util.rb | 8 ++++++--
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/sup/util.rb b/lib/sup/util.rb
> index ceaf0b8..9909022 100644
> --- a/lib/sup/util.rb
> +++ b/lib/sup/util.rb
> @@ -108,7 +108,9 @@ class Module
> def defer_all_other_method_calls_to obj
> class_eval %{
> def method_missing meth, *a, &b; @#{obj}.send meth, *a, &b; end
> - def respond_to? meth; @#{obj}.respond_to?(meth); end
> + def respond_to?(m, include_private = false)
> + @#{obj}.respond_to?(m, include_private)
> + end
> }
> end
> end
> @@ -527,7 +529,9 @@ class Recoverable
> def to_yaml x; __pass :to_yaml, x; end
> def is_a? c; @o.is_a? c; end
>
> - def respond_to? m; @o.respond_to? m end
> + def respond_to?(m, include_private=false)
> + @o.respond_to?(m, include_private)
> + end
>
> def __pass m, *a, &b
> begin
--
+61 (0) 410 646 369
[e]: rgh at neoss.com.au
[im]: rgh at jabber.org
You're worried criminals will continue to penetrate into cyberspace, and
I'm worried complexity, poor design and mismanagement will be there to meet
them - Marcus Ranum
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] [PATCH] respond_to? needs include_private argument
2008-06-18 22:21 ` Richard Heycock
@ 2008-06-19 0:35 ` Richard Heycock
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Richard Heycock @ 2008-06-19 0:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
Please disregard my last. I really mustn't reply to emails before my morning
coffee!
rgh
<snip>
--
+61 (0) 410 646 369
[e]: rgh at neoss.com.au
[im]: rgh at jabber.org
You're worried criminals will continue to penetrate into cyberspace, and
I'm worried complexity, poor design and mismanagement will be there to meet
them - Marcus Ranum
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] [PATCH] respond_to? needs include_private argument
2008-06-18 20:25 [sup-talk] [PATCH] respond_to? needs include_private argument Decklin Foster
2008-06-18 22:21 ` Richard Heycock
@ 2008-06-19 17:55 ` William Morgan
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: William Morgan @ 2008-06-19 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
Reformatted excerpts from Decklin Foster's message of 2008-06-18:
> I did some digging and it seems like when Array#flatten, in attempting
> to figure out if it can flatten some list element recursively, sends
> it :respond_to? with both arguments -- I didn't even know there was a
> second one (defaults to false; see docs). But this only happened recently
> or something.
That makes sense. Either the second argument, or the fact that
Array#flatten uses both arguments, is what's changed in 1.8.7.
I've merged the patch directly into master.
> Also: Hi everyone. I am the future Debian maintainer of sup.
Whoo!
--
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-06-19 17:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-06-18 20:25 [sup-talk] [PATCH] respond_to? needs include_private argument Decklin Foster
2008-06-18 22:21 ` Richard Heycock
2008-06-19 0:35 ` Richard Heycock
2008-06-19 17:55 ` William Morgan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox