Bug report filed here: http://ironruby.codeplex.com/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=761
Thanks, Daniele On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 17:37, Tomas Matousek <tomas.matou...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Please file a bug. > > Thanks, > Tomas > > -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org > [mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Daniele Alessandri > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 5:44 AM > To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Strange behavior when redefining methods on object > instances (possible bug) > > Hi, > while in the process of trimming down the failure rate of the > core/array specs I noticed a strange behavior of IronRuby. I'm pasting > here two repl sessions I used to reproduce it: > > >>> foo = Object.new > => #<Object:0x000005c> > >>> bar = Object.new > => #<Object:0x000005e> > >>> > >>> def foo.to_s; p "foo#to_s has been invoked"; "foo" end; > => nil > >>> > >>> foo > "foo#to_s has been invoked" > => foo > >>> bar > => #<Object:0x000005e> > > As you can see there is nothing wrong here, so here is the second > session where the only difference is in that the order of foo and bar > at the end of the snippet is inverted: > > >>> foo = Object.new > => #<Object:0x000005c> > >>> bar = Object.new > => #<Object:0x000005e> > >>> > >>> def foo.to_s; p "foo#to_s has been invoked"; "foo" end; > => nil > >>> > >>> bar > => #<Object:0x000005e> > >>> foo > => #<Object:0x000005c> > > I would expect to get "foo#to_s has been invoked" printed just like in > the first snippet (and IRB on MRI behave like expected), but instead > the method called on foo is the one of Object#to_s (a step-by-step > debug session confirmed this). Could it be related to some issues in > the method caching stuff that happens deep into the internals of > IronRuby? > > This problem affects certain mocking scenarios when running mspec (eg. > "Array#== returns false if any element is not == to the corresponding > element in the other the array" and "Array#delete removes elements > that are #== to object", but their implementation looks ok to me), so > it might even be possible that more specs which are being reported as > failures are not related to bogus implementations, but it is just > mspec that is failing due to a bug. > > Is there anyone that can confirm this before I file a bug on the bug tracker? > > Thanks, > Daniele > > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
