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

[ruby-core:116456] [Ruby master Feature#20215] Introduce `IO#readable?`
by ioquatix (Samuel Williams) 19 Mar '26

19 Mar '26

Issue #20215 has been reported by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20215: Introduce `IO#readable?` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20215 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- There are some cases where, as an optimisation, it's useful to know whether more data is potentially available. We already have `IO#eof?` but the problem with using `IO#eof?` is that it can block indefinitely for sockets. Therefore, code which uses `IO#eof?` to determine if there is potentially more data, may hang. ```ruby def make_request(path = "/") client = connect_remote_host # HTTP/1.0 request: client.write("GET #{path} HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n") # Read response client.gets("\r\n") # => "HTTP/1.0 200 OK\r\n" # Assuming connection close, there are two things the server can do: # 1. peer.close # 2. peer.write(...); peer.close if client.eof? # <--- Can hang here! puts "Connection closed" # Avoid yielding as we know there definitely won't be any data. else puts "Connection open, data may be available..." # There might be data available, so yield. yield(client) end ensure client&.close end make_request do |client| puts client.read # <--- Prefer to wait here. end ``` The proposed `IO#readable?` is similar to `IO#eof?` but rather than blocking, would simply return false. The expectation is the user will subsequently call `read` which may then wait. The proposed implementation would look something like this: ```ruby class IO def readable? !!self.closed? end end class BasicSocket # Is it likely that the socket is still connected? # May return false positive, but won't return false negative. def readable? return false unless super # If we can wait for the socket to become readable, we know that the socket may still be open. result = self.recv_nonblock(1, MSG_PEEK, exception: false) # No data was available - newer Ruby can return nil instead of empty string: return false if result.nil? # Either there was some data available, or we can wait to see if there is data avaialble. return !result.empty? || result == :wait_readable rescue Errno::ECONNRESET # This might be thrown by recv_nonblock. return false end end ``` For `IO` itself, when there is buffered data, `readable?` would also return true immediately, similar to `eof?`. This is not shown in the above implementation as I'm not sure if there is any Ruby method which exposes "there is buffered data". -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

8 18

[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

[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: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