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

[ruby-core:123672] [Ruby Feature#21665] Revisit Object#deep_freeze to support non-Ractor use cases
by headius (Charles Nutter) 05 Mar '26

05 Mar '26

Issue #21665 has been reported by headius (Charles Nutter). ---------------------------------------- Feature #21665: Revisit Object#deep_freeze to support non-Ractor use cases https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21665 * Author: headius (Charles Nutter) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- ## Proposal: Introduce `Object#deep_freeze` (or similar name) to freeze an entire object graph I would like to re-propose the addition of Object#deep_freeze as a way to explicitly freeze an entire object graph. This proposal was rejected some years ago after being brought up in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17145. The proposal was rejected in favor of making Ractor-specific methods like Ractor.make_shareable. There are a number of reasons why I believe `deep_freeze` is still an important addition: * Rubyists have been requesting a way to deep freeze an object graph for many years (decades?), far longer than Ractor has existed. * Immutable objects are the safest way to safe concurrency, with or without parallel threading or Ractor. * In fact, deep freezing has utility *completely unrelated to concurrency*, such as to guarantee that a large graph of objects will not be modified in the future. * In the absence of `deep_freeze`, users have been forced to implement the behavior themselves, rely on third-party libraries, or call `Ractor.make_shareable` even if they never intend to use Ractor. * The existing `Ractor.make_shareable` primarily does a deep freeze internally. Given the steady move toward making immutability the norm in Ruby, it seems clear to me that deep freezing is a feature that is long overdue. ## Revisiting arguments for rejecting `deep_freeze`: A number of reasons were given in #17145 for preferring the `Ractor.make_shareable` method and rejecting `deep_freeze`. I address those here: @ko1: > One concern about the name "freeze" is, what happens on shareable objects on Ractors. > For example, Ractor objects are shareable and they don't need to freeze to send beyond Ractor boundary. As mentioned above, deep freezing has utility completely separate from Ractors and concurrency. It is a frequently-requested and very useful feature to add. I think we should treat this as a standalone feature, and treat enhancements for Ractors as a separate concern. @ko1: > I also want to introduce Mutable but shareable objects using STM (or something similar) writing protocol (shareable Hash). What happens on deep_freeze? Five years later, I believe this has not yet happened. A potential future optimization for Ractor should not be justification to reject a useful feature today. If users implement their code using primarily immutable objects now, it's unlikely that they will want those same objects to be mutable in the future (this applies to deep freezing as well as `make_shareable`). @eregon: > A dynamic call to freeze causes extra calls, and needs checks that it was indeed frozen. > So for efficiency I think it would be better to mark as frozen internally without a call to freeze on every value. I agree with the concerns about dynamic calls to freeze and overridden versions of the method. It may make more sense to implement this as a utility method, like `Object.deep_freeze(obj)` (a non-overridable class utility method). This is essentially what has been implemented within `Ractor.make_shareable` today. @ko1: > Maybe the author don't want to care about Ractor. > The author want to declare "I don't touch it". So "deep_freeze" is better. This was actually given as a justification for a `deep_freeze` method versus something like `Object#to_shareable`, and yet what we ended up with was a method that requires users know about Ractor. I believe there should be a `deep_freeze` method that has nothing to do with Ractor. And users on JRuby and TruffleRuby already can get full parallelism today without Ractor. They do not care about Ractor, but they definitely care about deep freezing. @eregon: > I don't like anything with "ractor" in the name, that becomes not descriptive of what it does and IMHO looks weird for e.g. gems not specifically caring about Ractor. This is a large part of my justification for revisiting this proposal. Users should not have to care about or want to use Ractor just so they can deep freeze an object graph, because it has utility far beyond Ractor. @ko1: > I implemented Object#deep_freeze(skip_shareable: false) for trial. > https://github.com/ko1/ruby/pull/new/deep_freeze There's already a prototype of this, though I suspect this logic essentially became `Ractor.make_shareable` in the end. I believe it would be acceptable to implement `Ractor.make_shareable` by calling `deep_freeze` since there's largely no difference in visible behavior (other than Ractor-specific optimizations like marking a whole graph as shareable). @eregon: > How about first having deep_freeze that just freezes everything (except an object's class)? This is a good proposal. I believe it is what 99% of users currently calling `make_shareable` actually want, and again there's utility well beyond Ractor and concurrency scenarios. @eregon: > So we could mark as deeply frozen first, and remember to undo that if we cannot freeze some object. > However, is there any object that cannot be frozen? I would think not. The majority of uses of `make_shareable` I have seen are called exactly once on a graph of objects. It does not seem to be typical to repeatedly call `make_shareable`. I understand the desire to have a `shareable` bit for Ractor optimization, but that is a *separate feature* from deep freezing an object graph. There are many cases where we will only call `deep_freeze` once to ensure a graph is fully frozen before publishing it for other code to see, and most of these cases will not try to re-deep-freeze that graph. Ractor's need to "double-check" shareability is orthogonal to the discussion about deep freezing and should not be justification for rejecting `deep_freeze`. @eregon brought up concerns about not calling the custom `freeze` method on user types, since they may want to eagerly cache some data. I believe that discussion is out of scope. `deep_freeze` would be defined to only free the objects that are directly walkable from a root object, and only setting frozen bits. A new overridable method could be introduced that `deep_freeze` would call if present, but otherwise it should just do fast-path object freeze flag setting. @marcandre: > Looking at def freeze in the top ~400 gems, I found 64 in sequel gem alone, and 28 definitions in the rest 😅. This comment provides a breakdown of custom `freeze` methods and the reasons they are implemented. Again, I believe this is out of scope for the discussion at hand. Forcing objects to "prepare for deep freezing" is a separate consideration that will be very library-specific, since every library may want to prepare in a different way. But they *all* want the ability to recursively mark objects as frozen, which is a runtime-level feature. @ko1: > We discussed about the name "deep_freeze", and Matz said deep_freeze should be only for freezing, not related to Ractor. So classes/module should be frozen if [C].deep_freeze. This is why I proposed a Object#deep_freeze(skip_shareable: true) and Ractor.make_shareable(obj). Avoiding classes and modules when deep freezing seems like a reasonable option to me. Naming could make this behavior clear, but again I believe 99% of users just want a plain old object `deep_freeze`. And this is again conflating two separate concerns: * deep freezing * marking an entire graph as shareable These are – and should be – two separate features. The deep freezing feature should not depend on setting shareability bits, since shareability is only meaningful in the context of Ractors. @ko1: > So naming issue is reamained? > > Object#deep_freeze (matz doesn't like it) > Object#deep_freeze(skip_sharable: true) (I don't know how Matz feel. And it is difficult to define Class/Module/... on skip_sharable: false) > Ractor.make_shareable(obj) (clear for me, but it is a bit long) > Ractor.shareable!(obj) (shorter. is it clear?) > Object#shareable! (is it acceptable?) > ... other ideas? I outline some alternatives below. ## Alternative forms: @matz didn't like `deep_freeze` five years ago. How do you feel about it now, @matz? Some alternatives with justification: * Object.deep_freeze(obj) This would make sense to avoid users being able to override the `deep_freeze` behavior, and would make it feel more like a global utility method with special behavior. * Object#freeze(obj, deep: true) * Object#freeze(obj, recursive: true) These work within the existing `freeze` method and still convey intent, but may break APIs that don't expect to receive keyword arguments. And there are some alternative names, which may work as either instance methods or class methods: * `freeze_recursive` * `freeze_all` * `freeze!` * `freeze_reachable_objects` (long but a variation of this might address concerns about not freezing classes and modules) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

6 7

[ruby-core:123894] [Ruby Bug#21709] Inconsistent encoding by Regexp.escape
by thyresias (Thierry Lambert) 26 Feb '26

26 Feb '26

Issue #21709 has been reported by thyresias (Thierry Lambert). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21709: Inconsistent encoding by Regexp.escape https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21709 * Author: thyresias (Thierry Lambert) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 3.4.7 (2025-10-08 revision 7a5688e2a2) +PRISM [x64-mingw-ucrt] * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ```ruby %w(foo être).each do |s| puts "string: #{s.inspect} -> #{s.encoding}" puts "escaped: #{Regexp.escape(s).inspect} -> #{Regexp.escape(s).encoding}" end ``` Output: ``` string: "foo" -> UTF-8 escaped: "foo" -> US-ASCII string: "être" -> UTF-8 escaped: "être" -> UTF-8 ``` The result should always match the encoding of the argument. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

5 13

[ruby-core:117027] [Ruby master Bug#20319] Singleton class is being frozen lazily in some cases
by andrykonchin (Andrew Konchin) 24 Feb '26

24 Feb '26

Issue #20319 has been reported by andrykonchin (Andrew Konchin). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20319: Singleton class is being frozen lazily in some cases https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20319 * Author: andrykonchin (Andrew Konchin) * Status: Open * ruby -v: 3.2.2 * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I've noticed suspicious behaviour (it doesn't affect anything in practice for me though) when an object becomes frozen only its own singleton class becomes frozen immediately. A singleton class of the immediate singleton class becomes frozen lazily after `#singleton_class` method call: ```ruby o = Object.new klass = o.singleton_class.singleton_class o.freeze puts klass.frozen? # false <== here we expect true puts o.singleton_class.singleton_class.frozen? # true puts klass.frozen? # true ``` I would expect all created singleton classes in an object singleton classes chain to become frozen immediately. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

5 8

[ruby-core:122847] [Ruby Feature#21520] Feature Proposal: Enumerator::Lazy#peek
by nuzair46 (Nuzair Rasheed) 17 Feb '26

17 Feb '26

Issue #21520 has been reported by nuzair46 (Nuzair Rasheed). ---------------------------------------- Feature #21520: Feature Proposal: Enumerator::Lazy#peek https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21520 * Author: nuzair46 (Nuzair Rasheed) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- # Abstract Add a #peek method to Enumerator::Lazy that allows observing each element in a lazy enumeration pipeline without modifying or consuming the stream. # Background Ruby provides Enumerator::Lazy for efficient lazy stream processing. However, unlike languages such as Java, it lacks a clean way to inspect intermediate elements during lazy evaluation. Currently, developers must misuse .map for side effects, example: ```rb (1..).lazy.map { |x| puts x; x }.select(&:even?).first(3) ``` This is semantically incorrect and confusing, since .map implies transformation, not observation. # Proposal Introduce Enumerator::Lazy#peek, which yields each item to a block and returns the item unmodified, similar to Object#tap, but in a lazy stream: ```rb (1..).lazy .peek { |x| puts "saw: #{x}" } .select(&:even?) .first(3) ``` This would be equivalent to: ```rb lazy.map { |x| block.call(x); x } ``` but with improved semantic clarity. # Use cases • Debugging lazy enumerators without breaking the chain • Logging or instrumentation in pipelines • Educational / demo use for showing lazy evaluation step-by-step • Cleaner replacement for map { puts x; x } hacks Example: ```rb data = (1..).lazy .peek { |x| puts "got #{x}" } .select(&:even?) .first(5) ``` result: ```rb got 1 got 2 got 3 got 4 got 5 ``` And return [2, 4, 6, 8, 10] # Discussion #peek is a minimal, non-breaking addition that improves clarity and idiomatic usage of Enumerator::Lazy. It avoids abusing .map for observation and is familiar to developers from other languages. #peek is also not needed for other enumerators where .tap or .each can do the job. It mirrors Java’s .stream().peek(...) and makes Ruby’s lazy enumeration more expressive and readable. # See also • [Java Stream.peek](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/stream/Str… I would be glad to work on this and make a PR. Thank you. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 12

[ruby-core:115196] [Ruby master Feature#19979] Allow methods to declare that they don't accept a block via `&nil`
by ufuk (Ufuk Kayserilioglu) 15 Feb '26

15 Feb '26

Issue #19979 has been reported by ufuk (Ufuk Kayserilioglu). ---------------------------------------- Feature #19979: Allow methods to declare that they don't accept a block via `&nil` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19979 * Author: ufuk (Ufuk Kayserilioglu) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- ## Abstract This feature proposes new syntax to allow methods to explicitly declare that they don't accept blocks, and makes passing of a block to such methods an error. ## Background In #15554, it was proposed to automatically detect methods that do not use the block passed to them, and to error if a block was passed to such methods. As far as I can tell, it was later on closed since #10499 solved a large part of the problem. That proposal has, as part of the dev meeting discussion, a proposal from @matz to allow methods to use `&nil` to explicitly declare that they don't accept a block. At the time, the proposal was trying to solve a bigger problem, so this sub-proposal was never considered seriously. However, notes in the proposal say: > It is explicit, but it is tough to add this `&nil` parameter declaration to all of methods (do you want to add it to `def []=(i, e, &nil)`?). (I agree `&nil` is valuable on some situations) This proposal extracts that sub-proposal to make this a new language feature. ## Proposal In Ruby, it is always valid for the caller to pass a block to a method call, even if the callee is not expecting a block to be passed. This leads to subtle user errors, where the author of some code assumes a method call uses a block, but the block passed to the method call is silently ignored. The proposal is to introduce `&nil` at method declaration sites to mean "This method does not accept a block". This is symmetric to the ability to pass `&nil` at call sites to mean "I am not passing a block to this method call", which is sometimes useful when making `super` calls (since blocks are always implicitly passed). Explicitly, the proposal is to make the following behaviour be a part of Ruby: ```ruby def find(item = nil, &nil) # some implementation that doesn't call `yield` or `block_given?` end find { |i| i == 42 } # => ArgumentError: passing block to the method `find' that does not accept a block. ``` ## Implementation I assume the implementation would be a grammar change to make `&nil` valid at method declaration sites, as well as raising an `ArgumentError` for methods that are called with a block but are declared with `&nil`. ## Evaluation Since I don't have an implementation, I can't make a proper evaluation of the feature proposal. However, I would expect the language changes to be minimal with no runtime costs for methods that don't use the `&nil` syntax. ## Discussion This proposal has much smaller scope than #15554 so that the Ruby language can start giving library authors the ability to explicitly mark their methods as not accepting a block. This is fully backward compatible, since it is an opt-in behaviour and not an opt-out one. Future directions after this feature proposal could be a way to signal to the VM that any method in a file that doesn't explicitly use `yield`/`block_given?` or explicitly declared a block parameter should be treated as not accepting a block. This can be done via some kind of pragma similar to `frozen_string_literal`, or through other means. However, such future directions are beyond the scope of this proposal. ## Summary Adding the ability for methods to declare that they don't accept a block will make writing code against such methods safer and more resilient, and will prevent silently ignored behaviour that is often hard to catch or troubleshoot. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

10 25

[ruby-core:121988] [Ruby Bug#21324] Namespace loads RubyGems in root Namespace but it should not
by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) 15 Feb '26

15 Feb '26

Issue #21324 has been reported by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21324: Namespace loads RubyGems in root Namespace but it should not https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21324 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 3.5.0dev (2025-05-10T07:50:29Z namespace-on-read-.. bd4f57f96b) +PRISM [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- RubyGems has tons of mutable state, isn't core library and isn't "builtin classes" either, so it should not be in root Namespace, as it is currently: ``` $ RUBY_NAMESPACE=1 ruby -ve 'ns = Namespace.new; p ns::Gem.equal?(Gem)' ruby 3.5.0dev (2025-05-10T07:50:29Z namespace-on-read-.. bd4f57f96b) +PRISM [x86_64-linux] ruby: warning: Namespace is experimental, and the behavior may change in the future! See doc/namespace.md for know issues, etc. true ``` A concrete example of what breaks most likely due to this: ``` $ gem i delegate:0.3.1 $ RUBY_NAMESPACE=1 ruby -ve 'require "delegate"; p Delegator::VERSION; ns = Namespace.new; File.write "ns.rb", "gem %{delegate}, %{0.3.1}; require :delegate.to_s; p Delegator::VERSION"; ns.require "./ns"' ruby 3.5.0dev (2025-05-10T07:50:29Z namespace-on-read-.. bd4f57f96b) +PRISM [x86_64-linux] ruby: warning: Namespace is experimental, and the behavior may change in the future! See doc/namespace.md for know issues, etc. "0.4.0" /home/eregon/prefix/ruby-master/lib/ruby/3.5.0+0/rubygems/specification.rb:2232:in 'Gem::Specification#check_version_conflict': can't activate delegate-0.3.1, already activated delegate-0.4.0 (Gem::LoadError) from /home/eregon/prefix/ruby-master/lib/ruby/3.5.0+0/rubygems/specification.rb:1383:in 'Gem::Specification#activate' from /home/eregon/prefix/ruby-master/lib/ruby/3.5.0+0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_gem.rb:62:in 'block in Kernel#gem' from /home/eregon/prefix/ruby-master/lib/ruby/3.5.0+0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_gem.rb:62:in 'Thread::Mutex#synchronize' from /home/eregon/prefix/ruby-master/lib/ruby/3.5.0+0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_gem.rb:62:in 'Kernel#gem' from /home/eregon/ns.rb:1:in '<top (required)>' from -e:1:in 'Namespace#require' from -e:1:in '<main>' ``` i.e. `ns` sees delegate-0.4.0 was loaded in main namespace but it shouldn't. Previously mentioned in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21311#note-36 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

5 8

[ruby-core:123433] [Ruby Misc#21630] Suggest @Earlopain for core contributor
by kddnewton (Kevin Newton) 12 Feb '26

12 Feb '26

Issue #21630 has been reported by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). ---------------------------------------- Misc #21630: Suggest @Earlopain for core contributor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21630 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- @Earlopain has been prolifically contributing to Prism for over a year, in addition to other various changes around ruby/ruby, like [96fdaf2e](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/96fdaf2e393933fdd128cd1a41fa9…, [3826019f](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/3826019f310991aedf0612408d7b8…, [a82e7132](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/a82e7132df71bd99b5d02c0c8a348…, and [many more](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commits/master/?author=Earlopain). I would very much like @Earlopain to be able to merge their own contributions to Ruby, since they have been of such high quality for so long. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

8 9

[ruby-core:123449] [Ruby Bug#21633] A `rb_thread_call_without_gvl` loop can cause the fiber scheduler to ignore signals.
by ioquatix (Samuel Williams) 12 Feb '26

12 Feb '26

Issue #21633 has been reported by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21633: A `rb_thread_call_without_gvl` loop can cause the fiber scheduler to ignore signals. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21633 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Open * Assignee: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Backport: 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- The gRPC gem calls `rb_thread_call_without_gvl` in a loop, and doesn't exit when interrupts are delivered if `Thread.handle_interrupt(::SignalException => :never)` is used by the scheduler to create a safe point for asynchronous signal handling. While this may not be considered a bug in any particular part of the system, the combination of the behaviour creates a situation where gRPC can hang for a long time and ignores SIGINT / SIGTERM. ## gRPC Failure Analysis From [`src/ruby/ext/grpc/rb_completion_queue.c`](https://github.com/samuel-williams-shopify/grpc/blob/debug/src/ruby/ext/grpc/rb_completion_queue.c): ```c static void unblock_func(void* param) { next_call_stack* const next_call = (next_call_stack*)param; next_call->interrupted = 1; // ← SIGINT causes this flag to be set } grpc_event rb_completion_queue_pluck(grpc_completion_queue* queue, void* tag, gpr_timespec deadline, const char* reason) { // ... do { next_call.interrupted = 0; // ← Reset flag rb_thread_call_without_gvl(grpc_rb_completion_queue_pluck_no_gil, (void*)&next_call, unblock_func, (void*)&next_call); if (next_call.event.type != GRPC_QUEUE_TIMEOUT) break; } while (next_call.interrupted); // ← The problem! If interrupted, LOOP AGAIN! return next_call.event; } ``` The loop explicitly retries after interruption, making SIGINT/SIGTERM ineffective. This might be considered the expected behaviour if `Thread.handle_interrupt` is used. However, the goal of `Thread.handle_interrupt` in the fiber scheduler is to create a safe point for signal handling, not to prevent them completely. Since this loop never yields back to the scheduler, no such chance exists, and the loop will continue indefinitely. As `rb_thread_call_without_gvl` invokes `vm_check_ints_blocking`, one solution is to yield to the scheduler in the case that there are pending interrupts. This gives the scheduler a chance to handle the incoming SIGINT / SIGTERM signals at the safe point. For a full reproduction of the issue using gRPC: https://github.com/samuel-williams-shopify/grpc-interrupt For the proposed fix: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/14700 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 1

[ruby-core:121683] [Ruby Bug#21272] Class.new doesn't trigger :class TracePoint
by st0012 (Stan Lo) 09 Feb '26

09 Feb '26

Issue #21272 has been reported by st0012 (Stan Lo). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21272: Class.new doesn't trigger :class TracePoint https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21272 * Author: st0012 (Stan Lo) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- According to the official [documentation](https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/TracePoint.html#class-T…: > To filter what is traced, you can pass any of the following as events: > > :class > Start a class or module definition. I'd expect `:class` events to be triggered when new classes are defined via `Class.new` as well, but currently that's not the case. Should we either support `Class.new`, or clarify the behaviour in documentation? ### Reproduction ```rb TracePoint.trace(:class) do |tp| puts "Class created at line: #{tp.lineno}" end class Foo; end # Triggers the tracepoint Baz = Class.new # Doesn't trigger the tracepoint # ruby test.rb # Class created at line: 5 ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 8

[ruby-core:118784] [Ruby master Feature#20664] Add `before` and `until` options to Enumerator.produce
by knu (Akinori MUSHA) 08 Feb '26

08 Feb '26

Issue #20664 has been reported by knu (Akinori MUSHA). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20664: Add `before` and `until` options to Enumerator.produce https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20664 * Author: knu (Akinori MUSHA) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- Enumerator.produce provides a nice way to generate an infinite sequence but is a bit awkward to define how to end a sequence. It lacks a simple and easy way to produce typical finite sequences in an intuitive syntax. This proposal attempts to solve the problem by adding these two options to the method: - `before`: when provided, it is used as a predicate to determine if an iteration should end before a generated value gets yielded. - `until`: when provided, it is used as a predicate to determine if an iteration should end until after a generated value gets yielded. Any value that responds to `to_proc` and returns a `Proc` object is accepted in these options. A typical use case for the `before` option is traversing a tree structure to iterate over the ancestors or following/preceding siblings of a node. The `until` option can be used when there is a clear definition of the "last" value to yield. ```ruby enum = Enumerator.produce(File, before: :nil?, &:superclass) enum.to_a #=> [File, IO, Object, BasicObject] enum = Enumerator.produce(3, until: :zero?, &:pred) enum_to_a #=> [3, 2, 1, 0] ``` ---Files-------------------------------- 0001-Add-before-and-until-options-to-Enumerator.produce.patch (10.7 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

6 12