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

[ruby-core:123164] [Ruby Feature#17398] SyntaxError in endless method
by Earlopain (Earlopain _) 02 Sep '25

02 Sep '25

Issue #17398 has been updated by Earlopain (Earlopain _). It is easy for prism to accept this as well: https://github.com/ruby/prism/pull/3632 I checked the above examples and prism seems to interpret them in the same way. ---------------------------------------- Feature #17398: SyntaxError in endless method https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17398#change-114503 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Assigned * Assignee: prism ---------------------------------------- This works: ```ruby def foo() = puts("bar") ``` This does not: ```ruby def foo() = puts "bar" # ^ syntax error, unexpected string literal, expecting `do' or '{' or '(' ``` Is this intentional or accidental? Not sure how it is reasoned. ---Files-------------------------------- allow-command-style-endless-method-def.patch (3.44 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:123162] [Ruby Feature#17398] SyntaxError in endless method
by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 01 Sep '25

01 Sep '25

Issue #17398 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Status changed from Open to Assigned Assignee set to prism Ok, then we need a patch for prism ---------------------------------------- Feature #17398: SyntaxError in endless method https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17398#change-114500 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Assigned * Assignee: prism ---------------------------------------- This works: ```ruby def foo() = puts("bar") ``` This does not: ```ruby def foo() = puts "bar" # ^ syntax error, unexpected string literal, expecting `do' or '{' or '(' ``` Is this intentional or accidental? Not sure how it is reasoned. ---Files-------------------------------- allow-command-style-endless-method-def.patch (3.44 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:123161] [Ruby Feature#17398] SyntaxError in endless method
by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 01 Sep '25

01 Sep '25

Issue #17398 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto). Sounds reasonable, considering existing grammar. Matz. ---------------------------------------- Feature #17398: SyntaxError in endless method https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17398#change-114499 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- This works: ```ruby def foo() = puts("bar") ``` This does not: ```ruby def foo() = puts "bar" # ^ syntax error, unexpected string literal, expecting `do' or '{' or '(' ``` Is this intentional or accidental? Not sure how it is reasoned. ---Files-------------------------------- allow-command-style-endless-method-def.patch (3.44 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:123141] [Ruby Bug#21558] Regexp.union with multiple regexps returns a non-shareable object (should be shareable if possible)
by niku (niku _) 01 Sep '25

01 Sep '25

Issue #21558 has been reported by niku (niku _). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21558: Regexp.union with multiple regexps returns a non-shareable object (should be shareable if possible) https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21558 * Author: niku (niku _) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 3.5.0dev (2025-08-30T18:24:25Z master 5c7dfe85a1) +PRISM [arm64-darwin24] * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Regexp.union returns a non-shareable object when given multiple Regex arguments. Is this expected behavior? It would be preferable if the resulting Regexp were shareable, since single-argument `Regexp.union` does produce a shareable object. ```irb irb(main):001> a = /a/ => /a/ irb(main):002> b = Regexp.union(a) => /a/ irb(main):003> c = Regexp.union(a, a) => /(?-mix:a)|(?-mix:a)/ irb(main):004> Ractor.shareable?(a) => true irb(main):005> Ractor.shareable?(b) => true irb(main):006> Ractor.shareable?(c) => false ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 5

[ruby-core:123153] [Ruby Feature#17398] SyntaxError in endless method
by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 31 Aug '25

31 Aug '25

Issue #17398 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Status changed from Closed to Open Thanks, it looks good. @matz what do you think? ---------------------------------------- Feature #17398: SyntaxError in endless method https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17398#change-114485 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- This works: ```ruby def foo() = puts("bar") ``` This does not: ```ruby def foo() = puts "bar" # ^ syntax error, unexpected string literal, expecting `do' or '{' or '(' ``` Is this intentional or accidental? Not sure how it is reasoned. ---Files-------------------------------- allow-command-style-endless-method-def.patch (3.44 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:123152] [Ruby Feature#17398] SyntaxError in endless method
by yui-knk (Kaneko Yuichiro) 31 Aug '25

31 Aug '25

Issue #17398 has been updated by yui-knk (Kaneko Yuichiro). > Note that private def hello = puts "Hello" does not parse for technical reason. It's possible. Patch is https://github.com/yui-knk/ruby/tree/bug_17398. This change allows single endless method definition with command body as an argument of the method. Some cases you might be aware are * `private :m, def hello = puts "Hello"` * This is SyntaxError because only single argument case is allowed. * This is same with one command is passed to argument. `obj.m 0, cmd 1, 2` is SyntaxError. * `private def hello = puts "Hello", "World"` * This is interpreted as `private def hello = puts("Hello", "World")` not `private (def hello = puts "Hello"), "World"`. * This is same with one command is passed to argument. `obj.m cmd 1, 2` is interpreted as `obj.m cmd(1, 2)` not `obj.m (cmd 1), 2`. * `private def hello = puts "Hello" do expr end` * This is interpreted as `private (def hello = puts "Hello") do expr end` not `private (def hello = puts "Hello" do expr end)` * This is same with one command is passed to argument. `obj.m cmd 1, 2 do expr end` is interpreted as `obj.m (cmd 1, 2) do expr end` not `obj.m (cmd 1, 2 do expr end)` ---------------------------------------- Feature #17398: SyntaxError in endless method https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17398#change-114484 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Closed ---------------------------------------- This works: ```ruby def foo() = puts("bar") ``` This does not: ```ruby def foo() = puts "bar" # ^ syntax error, unexpected string literal, expecting `do' or '{' or '(' ``` Is this intentional or accidental? Not sure how it is reasoned. ---Files-------------------------------- allow-command-style-endless-method-def.patch (3.44 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:123151] [Ruby Bug#18878] parse.y: Foo::Bar {} is inconsistently rejected
by yui-knk (Kaneko Yuichiro) 31 Aug '25

31 Aug '25

Issue #18878 has been updated by yui-knk (Kaneko Yuichiro). Note: 9930363aab6ac4b8d7034baff85cd86c17953dc9 was the commit to allow `Foo::Bar {}` in parse.y. ---------------------------------------- Bug #18878: parse.y: Foo::Bar {} is inconsistently rejected https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18878#change-114483 * Author: qnighy (Masaki Hara) * Status: Assigned * Assignee: ydah (Yudai Takada) * ruby -v: ruby 3.1.2p20 (2022-04-12 revision 4491bb740a) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- The following source doesn't parse: ```ruby Foo::Bar {} ``` despite the following: ```ruby bar # local variable or method call Bar # constant bar() # method call Bar() # method call bar {} # method call Bar {} # method call bar() {} # method call Bar() {} # method call Foo::bar # method call Foo::Bar # constant Foo::bar() # method call Foo::Bar() # method call Foo::bar {} # method call # Foo::Bar {} # SyntaxError Foo::bar() {} # method call Foo::Bar() {} # method call ``` Especially considering `Bar {}`, this looks like a missing implementation rather than an intentional behavior. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:123150] [Ruby Bug#18878] parse.y: Foo::Bar {} is inconsistently rejected
by yui-knk (Kaneko Yuichiro) 31 Aug '25

31 Aug '25

Issue #18878 has been updated by yui-knk (Kaneko Yuichiro). Patch: * Support only `Foo::Bar {} + 1`: https://github.com/yui-knk/ruby/tree/bug_18878_2 * Support both `Foo::Bar {} + 1` and `Foo::Bar do end` (and `Foo::Bar do end + 1`): https://github.com/yui-knk/ruby/tree/bug_18878 ---------------------------------------- Bug #18878: parse.y: Foo::Bar {} is inconsistently rejected https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18878#change-114482 * Author: qnighy (Masaki Hara) * Status: Assigned * Assignee: ydah (Yudai Takada) * ruby -v: ruby 3.1.2p20 (2022-04-12 revision 4491bb740a) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- The following source doesn't parse: ```ruby Foo::Bar {} ``` despite the following: ```ruby bar # local variable or method call Bar # constant bar() # method call Bar() # method call bar {} # method call Bar {} # method call bar() {} # method call Bar() {} # method call Foo::bar # method call Foo::Bar # constant Foo::bar() # method call Foo::Bar() # method call Foo::bar {} # method call # Foo::Bar {} # SyntaxError Foo::bar() {} # method call Foo::Bar() {} # method call ``` Especially considering `Bar {}`, this looks like a missing implementation rather than an intentional behavior. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0