January 2025 - ruby-core - ml.ruby-lang.org

[ruby-core:119335] [Ruby master Bug#20770] A *new* pipe operator proposal
by AlexandreMagro (Alexandre Magro) 05 Jan '25

05 Jan '25

Issue #20770 has been reported by AlexandreMagro (Alexandre Magro). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20770: A *new* pipe operator proposal https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20770 * Author: AlexandreMagro (Alexandre Magro) * Status: Open * ruby -v: 3.3.5 * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Hello, This is my first contribution here. I have seen previous discussions around introducing a pipe operator, but it seems the community didn't reach a consensus. I would like to revisit this idea with a simpler approach, more of a syntactic sugar that aligns with how other languages implement the pipe operator, but without making significant changes to Ruby's syntax. Currently, we often write code like this: ```ruby value = half(square(add(value, 3))) ``` We can achieve the same result using the `then` method: ```ruby value = value.then { add(_1, 3) }.then { square(_1) }.then { half(_1) } ``` While `then` helps with readability, we can simplify it further using the proposed pipe operator: ```ruby value = add(value, 3) |> square(_1) |> half(_1) ``` Moreover, with the upcoming `it` feature in Ruby 3.4 (#18980), the code could look even cleaner: ```ruby value = add(value, 3) |> square(it) |> half(it) ``` This proposal uses the anonymous block argument `(_1)`, and with `it`, it simplifies the code without introducing complex syntax changes. It would allow us to achieve the same results as in other languages that support pipe operators, but in a way that feels natural to Ruby, using existing constructs like `then` underneath. I believe this operator would enhance code readability and maintainability, especially in cases where multiple operations are chained together. Thank you for considering this proposal! -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

18 55

[ruby-core:120478] [Ruby master Bug#21004] Memory leak with `new_locations_lambda_body`
by kddnewton (Kevin Newton) 04 Jan '25

04 Jan '25

Issue #21004 has been reported by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21004: Memory leak with `new_locations_lambda_body` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21004 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- You can find the valgrind output here: https://github.com/ruby/prism/actions/runs/12613463262/job/35151355503?pr=3…. It looks like the allocated lambda locations are leaking under certain circumstances. The leak looks to be introduced here: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/fa2517451ec. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 1

[ruby-core:120410] [Ruby master Bug#20983] New `Ruby` module is linked to from all kinds of documentation pages
by Earlopain (Earlopain _) 03 Jan '25

03 Jan '25

Issue #20983 has been reported by Earlopain (Earlopain _). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20983: New `Ruby` module is linked to from all kinds of documentation pages https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20983 * Author: Earlopain (Earlopain _) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- For example https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/index.html * "Ruby" Documentation * New to "Ruby"? * "Ruby" interpreter * Get invovled with the "Ruby" community * Contribute to "Ruby" Many other pages have a link to it as well, especially in headers it doesn't look very good. The vast majority of cases will talk about Ruby the language, not Ruby the module. Is there maybe an option in rdoc to block autoreferences to a specific module? I think documentation will look much better without this link everywhere. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 5