January 2024 - ruby-core - ml.ruby-lang.org

[ruby-core:116034] [Ruby master Feature#18035] Introduce general model/semantic for immutability.
by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) 05 Jan '24

05 Jan '24

Issue #18035 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). I understand the advantages of immutability, but I worry about the overall direction this is taking us. So I'll just quote something @mame wrote previously, as it reflects my own opinion. mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #16153#note-6: > I'm against making Ruby immutable by default. One of the most important properties of Ruby is dynamics. Ruby has allowed users to change almost anything in run time: dynamically (re)defining classes and methods (including core builtin ones), manipulating instance variables and local variables (via Binding) through encapsulation, etc. These features are not recommended to abuse, but they actually bring big flexibility: monkey-patching, DRY, flexible operation, etc. However, blindly freezing objects may spoil this usefulness. > > It is a bit arguable if this flexibility limits performance. Some people say that it is possible to make Ruby fast with the flexibility kept (TruffleRuby proves it). That being said, I admit that the flexibility actually limits performance in the current MRI, and that we have no development resource to improve MRI so much in near future. I think that my proposal #11934 was one possible way to balance the flexibility and performance. Anyway, we need to estimate how much Ruby can be faster if the flexibility is dropped. If it becomes 10 times faster, it is worth considering of course. If it becomes 10 percent faster, it does not pay (in my opinion). ---------------------------------------- Feature #18035: Introduce general model/semantic for immutability. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18035#change-106031 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- It would be good to establish some rules around mutability, immutability, frozen, and deep frozen in Ruby. I see time and time again, incorrect assumptions about how this works in production code. Constants that aren't really constant, people using `#freeze` incorrectly, etc. I don't have any particular preference but: - We should establish consistent patterns where possible, e.g. - Objects created by `new` are mutable. - Objects created by literal are immutable. We have problems with how `freeze` works on composite data types, e.g. `Hash#freeze` does not impact children keys/values, same for Array. Do we need to introduce `freeze(true)` or `#deep_freeze` or some other method? Because of this, frozen does not necessarily correspond to immutable. This is an issue which causes real world problems. I also propose to codify this where possible, in terms of "this class of object is immutable" should be enforced by the language/runtime, e.g. ```ruby module Immutable def new(...) super.freeze end end class MyImmutableObject extend Immutable def initialize(x) @x = x end def freeze return self if frozen? @x.freeze super end end o = MyImmutableObject.new([1, 2, 3]) puts o.frozen? ``` Finally, this area has an impact to thread and fiber safe programming, so it is becoming more relevant and I believe that the current approach which is rather adhoc is insufficient. I know that it's non-trivial to retrofit existing code, but maybe it can be done via magic comment, etc, which we already did for frozen string literals. Proposed PR: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/4879 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:116013] [Ruby master Bug#20148] Sorting not working as expected on Urdu words.
by zohaibnadeem13＠gmail.com (Zohaib Nadeem) 05 Jan '24

05 Jan '24

Issue #20148 has been reported by zohaibnadeem13(a)gmail.com (Zohaib Nadeem). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20148: Sorting not working as expected on Urdu words. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20148 * Author: zohaibnadeem13(a)gmail.com (Zohaib Nadeem) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: 3.1.4 * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I was trying to sort an array of Urdu characters and found out an ambiguity in the result. Here is the script that I am using. ['ا', 'پ', 'ب', 'ت', 'ٹ'].sort Actual Result: ["ا", "ب", "ت", "ٹ", "پ"] Expected Result: ["ا", "ب", 'پ', "ت", "ٹ"] -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 3

[ruby-core:115982] [Ruby master Bug#20106] Backport d3933fc753187a055a4904af82f5f3794c88c416 to fix net-http test errors
by vo.x (Vit Ondruch) 05 Jan '24

05 Jan '24

Issue #20106 has been reported by vo.x (Vit Ondruch). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20106: Backport d3933fc753187a055a4904af82f5f3794c88c416 to fix net-http test errors https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20106 * Author: vo.x (Vit Ondruch) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.3.0 (2023-12-25 revision 5124f9ac75) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Testing with Ruby 3.3, I observe test errors such as: ~~~ 108) Failure: TestNetHTTPS#test_skip_hostname_verification [/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.3.0/test/net/http/test_https.rb:217]: Exception raised: <#<OpenSSL::SSL::SSLError: SSL_connect returned=1 errno=0 peeraddr=[::1]:45081 state=error: certificate verify failed (certificate has expired)>> Backtrace: /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.3.0/lib/net/protocol.rb:46:in `connect_nonblock' /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.3.0/lib/net/protocol.rb:46:in `ssl_socket_connect' /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.3.0/lib/net/http.rb:1674:in `connect' /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.3.0/lib/net/http.rb:1580:in `do_start' /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.3.0/lib/net/http.rb:1575:in `start' /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.3.0/test/net/http/test_https.rb:217:in `block (2 levels) in test_skip_hostname_verification'. ~~~ This is likely fixed by commit:git|d3933fc753187a055a4904af82f5f3794c88c416 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 1

[ruby-core:116023] [Ruby master Feature#13383] [PATCH] Module#source_location
by ioquatix (Samuel Williams) 04 Jan '24

04 Jan '24

Issue #13383 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). If we decided to introduce this feature, I'm against using a plain Array. Let's use a well defined interface. ---------------------------------------- Feature #13383: [PATCH] Module#source_location https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13383#change-106016 * Author: koba789 (Hidekazu Kobayashi) * Status: Rejected * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) ---------------------------------------- # Abstract It can inspect where the module or class is defined. # Background In debugging or development an application, I usually want to find out where the class definition of using library. There is Method#source_location but I could not find **Class** easily. # Implementation In Github: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/1562 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:112208] [Ruby master Bug#19409] Object's shape is reset after a ractor move
by luke-gru (Luke Gruber) 04 Jan '24

04 Jan '24

Issue #19409 has been reported by luke-gru (Luke Gruber). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19409: Object's shape is reset after a ractor move https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19409 * Author: luke-gru (Luke Gruber) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I believe an object should have the same shape after being moved from 1 ractor to another. ```ruby class Obj attr_accessor :a, :b, :c, :d def initialize @a = 1 @b = 2 @c = 3 end end r = Ractor.new do obj = receive #p RubyVM::Shape.of(obj) obj.d = 4 p obj.a, obj.b, obj.c, obj.d # gets wrong values due to object shape id being reset on object end obj = Obj.new #p RubyVM::Shape.of(obj) r.send(obj, move: true) r.take ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 2

[ruby-core:112211] [Ruby master Bug#19411] GC issue with moved objects
by luke-gru (Luke Gruber) 04 Jan '24

04 Jan '24

Issue #19411 has been reported by luke-gru (Luke Gruber). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19411: GC issue with moved objects https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19411 * Author: luke-gru (Luke Gruber) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: 3.2.0 * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- This crashes: ```ruby class Obj def initialize @obj = 3 end end GC.stress = true r = Ractor.new do obj = receive p obj end obj = Obj.new r.send(obj, move: true) r.take ``` It only crashes with nested objects, if you remove the ivar set in `initialize` it works fine. Maybe missing `RB_GC_GUARD`? -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 2

[ruby-core:116018] [Ruby master Feature#15927] Allow string keys to be used for String#% and sprintf methods
by luke-gru (Luke Gruber) 04 Jan '24

04 Jan '24

Issue #15927 has been updated by luke-gru (Luke Gruber). This can be closed as I agree with the feedback given. Thanks! ---------------------------------------- Feature #15927: Allow string keys to be used for String#% and sprintf methods https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15927#change-106008 * Author: luke-gru (Luke Gruber) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Right now, in the methods sprintf() and String#%, only symbol keys can be used for named interpolation. For example (from the example documentation): "foo = %{foo}" % { :foo => 'bar' } #=> "foo = bar" String keys do not work like this: "foo = %{foo}" % { 'foo' => 'bar' } #=> raises KeyError I think string keys should work just the same as symbol keys here. I've created a PR on github for this, perhaps misguidedly, but if can be found here: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/2238 My argument for this feature is that String#gsub() and family works with string keys if given a Hash, for example: "chocolate ice cream".gsub(/\bc/, { 'c' => 'C' }) #=> 'Chocolate ice Cream' Also, I don't like having to symbolize keys in strings unnecessarily, but maybe that just goes back to when Ruby couldn't GC some symbols. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:116011] [Ruby master Feature#18035] Introduce general model/semantic for immutability.
by matheusrich (Matheus Richard) 04 Jan '24

04 Jan '24

Issue #18035 has been updated by matheusrich (Matheus Richard). I'm not sure this was already mentioned, but this feels related to 3.2's Data class. If this is accepted, should Data classes all be immutable? To quote [the docs](https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/3.2/Data.html): > Data provides no member writers, or enumerators: it is meant to be a storage for immutable atomic values. But note that if some of data members is of a mutable class, Data does no additional immutability enforcement: > > ```rb > Event = Data.define(:time, :weekdays) > event = Event.new('18:00', %w[Tue Wed Fri]) > #=> #<data Event time="18:00", weekdays=["Tue", "Wed", "Fri"]> > > # There is no #time= or #weekdays= accessors, but changes are > # still possible: > event.weekdays << 'Sat' > event > #=> #<data Event time="18:00", weekdays=["Tue", "Wed", "Fri", "Sat"]> > ``` ---------------------------------------- Feature #18035: Introduce general model/semantic for immutability. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18035#change-106004 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- It would be good to establish some rules around mutability, immutability, frozen, and deep frozen in Ruby. I see time and time again, incorrect assumptions about how this works in production code. Constants that aren't really constant, people using `#freeze` incorrectly, etc. I don't have any particular preference but: - We should establish consistent patterns where possible, e.g. - Objects created by `new` are mutable. - Objects created by literal are immutable. We have problems with how `freeze` works on composite data types, e.g. `Hash#freeze` does not impact children keys/values, same for Array. Do we need to introduce `freeze(true)` or `#deep_freeze` or some other method? Because of this, frozen does not necessarily correspond to immutable. This is an issue which causes real world problems. I also propose to codify this where possible, in terms of "this class of object is immutable" should be enforced by the language/runtime, e.g. ```ruby module Immutable def new(...) super.freeze end end class MyImmutableObject extend Immutable def initialize(x) @x = x end def freeze return self if frozen? @x.freeze super end end o = MyImmutableObject.new([1, 2, 3]) puts o.frozen? ``` Finally, this area has an impact to thread and fiber safe programming, so it is becoming more relevant and I believe that the current approach which is rather adhoc is insufficient. I know that it's non-trivial to retrofit existing code, but maybe it can be done via magic comment, etc, which we already did for frozen string literals. Proposed PR: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/4879 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:115671] [Ruby master Feature#20054] Replace the use of `def` in endless method definitions with a new sigil
by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) 04 Jan '24

04 Jan '24

Issue #20054 has been reported by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20054: Replace the use of `def` in endless method definitions with a new sigil https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20054 * Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I propose to remove the use of keyword `def` from the syntax of endless method definition, and introduce a new sigil instead of it. There are several possibilities for what character to use as the sigil, but the most seemingly promising one to me at this point is the colon. So, instead of: ```rb def foo = method_body ``` I propose to write ```rb :foo = method_body ``` There a few reasons to dispense with `def` in endless method definition. First, the current syntax for endless method definition looks too similar to conventional method definition. Without endless method definition, we could already define a method in a single line: ```rb def foo; method_body end ``` and compared to this, what the endless method definition does is that, it only saves you from typing the `end` keyword just by replacing the semicolon with an equal sign. This actually had not made much sense to me. Just saving you from typing the keyword `end` looks too small of a change for introducing new syntax. In order for endless method definition syntax to be justified (as a shorthand for conventional method definition), it needs to save more typing. Second, in #19392, some people are claiming to change the precedence involving endless method definition. I agree with Matz and other developers who support the current precedence in which: ```rb def foo = bar and baz ``` is interpreted as: ```rb (def foo = bar) and baz ``` and I understand that the controversy is due to the look and feel of the keyword `def`. `def` has lower precedence than `and` in conventional method definition, although `=` has higher precedence than `and` in variable/constant assignment. Mixing the low-precedence `def` and the high-precedence `=` into a single syntax was the cause of the trouble, according to my opinion. Thence, we should get rid of `def`. Once we do so, we need to distinguish endless method definition from variable/constant assignment in a new way. What came to my mind was to use a single character: a sigil. Especially, using the colon seems to make sense to me for several reasons: Most importantly, assignment to a symbol is impossible, and it currently raises a syntax error, so it would not conflict with variable/constant assignment syntax. Within Ruby syntax, symbol is naturally used to represent a method name. For example, in `foo(&:bar)` constructions, users are used to passing a method name as a symbol. Also, a method definition returns a symbol representing the method name. So, making the endless method definition syntax look superficially like an "assignment to a symbol" would make sense. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

6 6

[ruby-core:116002] [Ruby master Feature#16495] Inconsistent quotes in error messages
by joshuap (Josh Wood) 04 Jan '24

04 Jan '24

Issue #16495 has been updated by joshuap (Josh Wood). ivoanjo (Ivo Anjo) wrote in #note-25: > matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote in #note-7: > > It was something cultural. I admit nowadays very few people use backquote as a left-hand quote, but it used to be. I also admit consistent quotes are easier for our eyes when using recent major fonts. But changing those quotes may affect existing log parsers. We have to estimate how big is the influence of the changes. > > > > Matz. > > On the topic of impacting the ecosystem, there have been quite a few changes to how exceptions have been displayed recently: > > * https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17930 > * https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18564 > > and even more being discussed https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19117 . > > Overall the impact on the ecosystem seemed quite small, and the gain in usability was nice. So changing the `` ` `` to a `'` doesn't seem like it would be worse than any of those changes. To chime in here, at Honeybadger we use this regular expression to parse the Ruby backtrace: https://github.com/honeybadger-io/honeybadger-ruby/blob/edc815c136c5d61fb4e… I don't think it should be too difficult for us to support both the old and new quote formats. As a Ruby user myself, I always found the backtick to be odd, and wasn't aware of the history, which is fascinating. ---------------------------------------- Feature #16495: Inconsistent quotes in error messages https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16495#change-105997 * Author: Kolano (Kenneth Kolano) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) ---------------------------------------- Error messages use inconsistent pairs of quotes, for instance: ``` -e:1:in `<main>': undefined local variable or method `foo' for main:Object (NameError) ``` where a back tick is used on the left-hand side, and a single quote is used on the right. The same quotes should be used on either side of the elements being quoted. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0