Issue #19617 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). nevans (Nicholas Evans) wrote:
For methods defined using the `def` keyword, the binding's local variables might be empty or might be all of the names in the method's locals table, with all values set to `nil`.
Rather, the `binding` method should return `nil`. There is simply no captured binding for `def` methods. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19617: Add Method#binding and UnboundMethod#binding, similar to Proc#binding https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19617#change-102911 * Author: nevans (Nicholas Evans) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- When a method is defined dynamically with `define_method`, it would be useful to obtain access to the defining block's binding and the local variables it has captured, based on the defining block's binding. For methods defined using the `def` keyword, the binding's local variables might be empty or might be all of the names in the method's locals table, with all values set to `nil`. For UnboundMethod, it is unclear (to me) what the appropriate receiver for the binding would be, so perhaps `unbound.binding.receiver` should raise an exception. Alternatively (or additionally), something like `Method#defining_proc` and `UnboundMethod#defining_proc` might be added and return `nil` for `def` definitions and the proc for `define_method` definitions. This would be a useful tool when debugging from the console. As another example, it might be used to scan a code base for dynamically generated regexps which are only reachable via the enclosed local variables and test that they are all linear time (see https://github.com/ruby/net-imap/blob/92db350b24c388d2a2104f36cac9caa49a1044...). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/