- ruby-core - ml.ruby-lang.org

[ruby-core:123168] ‍
by Voicemail 03 Sep '25

03 Sep '25

1 0

[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:117618] [Ruby master Feature#20437] Could be the licensing conditions be made less ambiguous?
by vo.x (Vit Ondruch) 02 Sep '25

02 Sep '25

Issue #20437 has been reported by vo.x (Vit Ondruch). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20437: Could be the licensing conditions be made less ambiguous? https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20437 * Author: vo.x (Vit Ondruch) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- # Current state The current [COPYING](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/6cfd929034f1fe3d93160365505a8b88… file says the following: ~~~ Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz(a)netlab.jp>. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the 2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL), or the conditions below: 1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the ... snip ... ~~~ And this is quite ambiguous. Let me show a few examples: # Ambiguous examples ## lib/net/protocol.rb https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/6cfd929034f1fe3d93160365505a8b88bef56159/… ~~~ # This program is free software. You can re-distribute and/or # modify this program under the same terms as Ruby itself, # Ruby Distribute License or GNU General Public License. ~~~ So what is the license? Is it 2-clause BSDL + Ruby + GPL? Or is is just Ruby + GPL but not 2-clause BSDL? ## Racc https://github.com/ruby/racc/blob/d52fb64d166046bfde81e6e9c424fcd884ebcabf/… ~~~ Racc is distributed under the same terms of ruby. (see the file COPYING). ~~~ where the [COPYING](https://github.com/ruby/racc/blob/d52fb64d166046bfde81e6e9c424fcd8… contains just 2-clause BSDL. Not even mentioning that Ruby used to be GPLv2 licensed: https://github.com/ruby/racc/commit/cc7fe952a6b1fc2ef43477674fa13f2d9d99e818 ## Rubygems https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/master/LICENSE.txt The license is obviously modeled after Ruby COPYING file, but if it could say "licensed under MIT or Ruby", it would be much better. ## Gettext https://github.com/ruby-gettext/gettext/blob/8d84132efd888e68fffbce41331645… The license note is so old that it is not obvious what that means and what was the intention. Did the Ruby relicensing from "GPLv2 or Ruby" to "GPLv2 or BSD" influenced this project? ## SPDX https://spdx.org/licenses/Ruby.html It quotes just the "conditions below" as a Ruby license, while referring to [Ruby license file](https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt) mentioning also 2-clause BSDL # Proposal To me it seems that the whole world recognizes "Ruby" license, except Ruby. Therefore I think it would be nice if Ruby project recognized the "Ruby" license. There are two possibilities I can think of: ## Refer the license by name ~~~diff $ git diff diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING index 48e5a96de7..a2d179a8a9 100644 --- a/COPYING +++ b/COPYING @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz(a)netlab.jp>. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the -2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL), or the conditions below: +2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL), or the conditions of the Ruby license below: 1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the software without restriction, provided that you duplicate all of the ~~~ ## Extract the "conditions below" into "Ruby" license file The "conditions below" text could be extracted into separate file (e.g. "RUBY_LICENSE") and the "COPYING" file rephrased to say: ~~~ Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz(a)netlab.jp>. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the 2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL), or Ruby license (see the file RUBY_LICENSE) ~~~ -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 5

[ruby-core:123162] [Ruby Feature#17398] SyntaxError in endless method
by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 02 Sep '25

02 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) 02 Sep '25

02 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:123146] [Ruby Bug#21559] Unicode normalization nfd -> nfc -> nfd is not reversible
by tompng (tomoya ishida) 02 Sep '25

02 Sep '25

Issue #21559 has been reported by tompng (tomoya ishida). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21559: Unicode normalization nfd -> nfc -> nfd is not reversible https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21559 * Author: tompng (tomoya ishida) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I expect `nfd(nfc(str)) == nfd(str)` but found a string that doesn't. ~~~ruby # Ruby 3.1 - 3.5 str = "s\u{11930}\u{323}\u{11930}\u{307}" p str.unicode_normalize(:nfd) == str.unicode_normalize(:nfc).unicode_normalize(:nfd) #=> false ~~~ ~~~ruby # ruby 3.5.0dev str = "s\u{1611e}\u{323}\u{1611e}\u{307}\u{1611f}" p str.unicode_normalize(:nfd) == str.unicode_normalize(:nfc).unicode_normalize(:nfd) #=> false ~~~ -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 4

[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) 01 Sep '25

01 Sep '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) 01 Sep '25

01 Sep '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) 01 Sep '25

01 Sep '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