This code used to perform correctly with activesupport 2.0.2: #!/usr/bin/ruby require 'rubygems' require 'time' require 'active_support' class Time include ActiveSupport::CoreExtensions::Time::Calculations end nxt = Time.now.change(:hour => 7) nxt = nxt.tomorrow if nxt < Time.now puts nxt *** However, with activesupport 2.1.2 it now fails: /var/lib/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.1.2/lib/active_support/core_ext/time/calculations.rb:270:in 'compare_without_coercion': stack level too deep (SystemStackError) from /var/lib/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.1.2/lib/active_support/core_ext/time/calculations.rb:270:in '<=>' from ./problem_for_ruby.ml:11:in '<' from ./problem_for_ruby.ml:11 The above is obviously caused by the comparison: if nxt < Time.now Inside calculations.rb we seem to be getting lost in: # Layers additional behavior on Time#<=> so that DateTime and ActiveSupport::TimeWithZone instances # can be chronologically compared with a Time def compare_with_coercion(other) # if other is an ActiveSupport::TimeWithZone, coerce a Time instance from it so we can do <=> comparision other = other.comparable_time if other.respond_to?(:comparable_time) if other.acts_like?(:date) # other is a Date/DateTime, so coerce self #to_datetime and hand off to DateTime#<=> to_datetime.compare_without_coercion(other) else compare_without_coercion(other) end end compare_without_coercion is an alias: alias_method :compare_without_coercion, :<=> So: how to do this comparison? Is it a good idea to make use of activesupport's core extensions in my own ruby programs? Is this an activesupport bug? Many thanks, Jonathan G.
on 2008-10-24 12:42
on 2008-10-24 12:48
why include ActiveSupport::CoreExtensions::Time::Calculations in Time again when active support already does it for you?
on 2008-10-24 12:55
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:45:12PM +0900, Jorrel wrote: >why include ActiveSupport::CoreExtensions::Time::Calculations in Time >again when active support already does it for you? Of course, thank you. It's what you get when refactoring code. (my code originally had a more limited require) Cheers, Jonathan.