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

[ruby-core:118940] [Ruby master Bug#20696] `IO.read` ignores `err:` option
by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 11 May '26

11 May '26

Issue #20696 has been reported by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20696: `IO.read` ignores `err:` option https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20696 * Author: nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I expected the following code captures the error message, but `err:` option is ignored. ```shell-session $ ruby -e 'p IO.read("|ruby -e raise", err: %i[child out])' -e:1:in '<main>': unhandled exception "" ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 1

[ruby-core:116382] [Ruby master Feature#20205] Enable `frozen_string_literal` by default
by byroot (Jean Boussier) 14 Apr '26

14 Apr '26

Issue #20205 has been reported by byroot (Jean Boussier). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20205: Enable `frozen_string_literal` by default https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20205 * Author: byroot (Jean Boussier) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- ### Context The `frozen_string_literal: true` pragma was introduced in Ruby 2.3, and as far as I'm aware the plan was initially to make it the default for Ruby 3.0, but this plan was abandoned because it would be too much of a breaking change without any real further notice. According to Matz, he still wishes to enable `frozen_string_literal` by default in the future, but a reasonable migration plan is required. The main issue is backward compatibility, flipping the switch immediately would break a lot of code, so there must be some deprecation period. The usual the path forward for this kind of change is to emit deprecation warnings one of multiple versions in advance. One example of that was the Ruby 2.7 keyword argument deprecation. It was quite verbose, and some users were initially annoyed, but I think the community pulled through it and I don't seem to hear much about it anymore. So for frozen string literals, the first step would be to start warning when a string that would be frozen in the future is mutated. ### Deprecation Warning Implementation I implemented a quick proof of concept with @etienne in https://github.com/Shopify/ruby/pull/549 In short: - Files with `# frozen_string_literal: true` or `# frozen_string_literal: false` don't change in behavior at all. - Files with no `# frozen_string_literal` comment are compiled to use `putchilledstring` opcode instead of regular `putstring`. - This opcode mark the string with a user flag, when these strings are mutated, a warning is issued. Currently the proof of concept issue the warning at the mutation location, which in some case can make locating where the string was allocated a bit hard. But it is possible to improve it so the message also include the location at which the literal string was allocated, and learning from the keyword argument warning experience, we can record which warnings were already issued to avoid spamming users with duplicated warnings. As currently implemented, there is almost no overhead. If we modify the implementation to record the literal location, we'd incur a small memory overhead for each literal string in a file without an explicit `frozen_string_literal` pragma. But I believe we could do it in a way that has no overhead if `Warning[:deprecated] = false`. ### Timeline The migration would happen in 3 steps, each step can potentially last multiple releases. e.g. `R0` could be `3.4`, `R1` be `3.7` and `R2` be `4.0`. I don't have a strong opinion on the pace. - Release `R0`: introduce the deprecation warning (only if deprecation warnings enabled). - Release `R1`: make the deprecation warning show up regardless of verbosity level. - Release `R2`: make string literals frozen by default. ### Impact Given that `rubocop` is quite popular in the community and it has enforced the usage of `# frozen_string_literal: true` for years now, I suspect a large part of the actively maintained codebases in the wild wouldn't see any warnings. And with recent versions of `minitest` enabling deprecation warnings by default (and [potentially RSpec too](https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/2867)) the few that didn't migrate will likely be made compatible quickly. The real problem of course are the less actively developed libraries and applications. For such cases, any codebase can remain compatible by setting `RUBYOPT="--disable=frozen_string_literal"`, and so even after `R2` release. The flag would never be removed any legacy codebase can continue upgrading Ruby without changing a single line of cod by just flipping this flag. ### Workflow for library maintainers As a library maintainer, fixing the deprecation warnings can be as simple as prepending `# frozen_string_literal: false` at the top of all their source files, and this will keep working forever. Alternatively they can of course make their code compatible with frozen string literals. Code that is frozen string literal compatible doesn't need to explicitly declare it. Only code that need it turned of need to do so. ### Workflow for application owners For application owners, the workflow is the same than for libraries. However if they depend on a gem that hasn't updated, or that they can't upgrade it, they can run their application with `RUBYOPT="--disable=frozen_string_literal"` and it will keep working forever. Any user running into an incompatibility issue can set `RUBYOPT="--disable=frozen_string_literal"` forever, even in `4.x`, the only thing changing is the default value. And any application for which all dependencies have been made fully frozen string literal compatible can set `RUBYOPT="--enable=frozen_string_literal"` and start immediately removing magic comment from their codebase. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

23 82

[ruby-core:122558] [Ruby Bug#21446] StackOverflow when changing visibility in reopened refinement
by luke-gru (Luke Gruber) 24 Mar '26

24 Mar '26

Issue #21446 has been reported by luke-gru (Luke Gruber). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21446: StackOverflow when changing visibility in reopened refinement https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21446 * Author: luke-gru (Luke Gruber) * Status: Open * ruby -v: 3.5.0 * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ```ruby class A def a :a end end class B < A end module R refine B do private :a end end module R refine B do public :a end end using R B.new.a # StackOverflow ``` I would expect it to change the visibility, not to overflow the stack. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

5 4

[ruby-core:121642] [Ruby Bug#21266] YJIT GC safety crash with proc objects as block argument
by alanwu (Alan Wu) 23 Mar '26

23 Mar '26

Issue #21266 has been reported by alanwu (Alan Wu). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21266: YJIT GC safety crash with proc objects as block argument https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21266 * Author: alanwu (Alan Wu) * Status: Open * Assignee: yjit * Backport: 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- ```ruby # Run with --yjit-call-threshold=1 def foo(args) = bar(*args, &proc { _1 }) def bar(_, _, _, _, *rest) = yield rest GC.stress = true foo([1,2,3,4]) foo([1,2,3,4]) ``` The proc in these calls get collected on the yield to the GC to allocate the rest parameter arary. ``` ../vm_core.h:1668: Assertion Failed: vm_block_handler_type:rb_obj_is_proc(block_handler) ``` Or in release builds: ``` ../test.rb:1: [BUG] Segmentation fault at 0x0000000000000020 ruby 3.3.6 (2024-11-05 revision 75015d4c1f) +YJIT [arm64-darwin24] -- C level backtrace information ------------------------------------------- /Users/alan/.rubies/ruby-3.3.6/bin/ruby(rb_vm_bugreport+0xb4c) [0x104595590] /Users/alan/.rubies/ruby-3.3.6/bin/ruby(rb_bug_for_fatal_signal+0x100) [0x1043d6120] /Users/alan/.rubies/ruby-3.3.6/bin/ruby(sig_do_nothing+0x0) [0x1044fc4b0] /usr/lib/system/libsystem_platform.dylib(_sigtramp+0x38) [0x187572de4] /Users/alan/.rubies/ruby-3.3.6/bin/ruby(rb_vm_invokeblock+0x144) [0x10456b004] ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 3

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

17 Mar '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 14

[ruby-core:120819] [Ruby master Bug#21097] `x = a rescue b in c` and `def f = a rescue b in c` parsed differently between parse.y and prism
by tompng (tomoya ishida) 16 Mar '26

16 Mar '26

Issue #21097 has been reported by tompng (tomoya ishida). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21097: `x = a rescue b in c` and `def f = a rescue b in c` parsed differently between parse.y and prism https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21097 * Author: tompng (tomoya ishida) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 3.5.0dev (2025-01-27T08:19:32Z master c3c7300b89) +YJIT +MN +PRISM [arm64-darwin22] * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ~~~ruby x = a rescue b in c (x = (a rescue b)) in c # parse.y, prism(ruby 3.4) x = (a rescue (b in c)) # prism(ruby 3.5) ~~~ ~~~ruby def f = a rescue b in c #=> true(parse.y), :f(prism) (def f = (a rescue b)) in c # parse.y def f = (a rescue (b in c)) # prism ~~~ There is no difference between prism and parse.y parsing these codes ~~~ruby a rescue b in c # a rescue (b in c) x = a rescue b # x = (a rescue b) x = b in c # (x = b) in c def f = a rescue b # def f = (a rescue b) def f = b in c # (def f = a) in b ~~~ -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

9 12

[ruby-core:116589] [Ruby master Misc#20238] Use prism for mk_builtin_loader.rb
by kddnewton (Kevin Newton) 13 Mar '26

13 Mar '26

Issue #20238 has been reported by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). ---------------------------------------- Misc #20238: Use prism for mk_builtin_loader.rb https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20238 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I would like to propose that we use prism for mk_builtin_loader.rb. Right now the Ruby syntax that you can use in builtin classes is restricted to the base Ruby version (2.7). This means you can't use a lot of the nicer syntax that Ruby has shipped in the last couple of years. If we switch to using prism to parse the builtin files instead of using ripper, then we can always use the latest version of Ruby syntax. A pull request for this is here: https://github.com/kddnewton/ruby/pull/65. The approach for the PR is taken from how RJIT bindgen works. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

6 22

[ruby-core:121627] [Ruby Feature#21264] Extract Date library from Ruby repo in the future
by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) 06 Mar '26

06 Mar '26

Issue #21264 has been reported by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). ---------------------------------------- Feature #21264: Extract Date library from Ruby repo in the future https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21264 * Author: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- Note: This is not for Ruby 3.5. `Date` and `DateTime` has no primary maintainer in 10+ years. I would like to deprecate `date` via bundled gems for reducing our maintenance time especially @nobu. But `Time.prase` and `Time.strptime` are widely used now. How do we deprecate `date` library? 1. Migrate `Date._strptime`, `Date.strptime` and `Date._parse` to `Time`. The current `Date` is migrated as bundled gems. 2. Migrate `Date` to the bundled gems. `Time.parse` and `Time.strptime` warns if `date` is not found. 3. Keep the current situation 4. ... Does anyone have another idea? -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 8

[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: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