Issue #21396 has been updated by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson). jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) wrote in #note-2:
This is not a bug, IMO. Using underlying functions instead of calling methods was one of the deliberate design decisions for core Set (see #21216), and how other core collection classes work. `Array.new(1, true)` does not call `Array#[]=`, it calls `rb_ary_store`.
If we want to do this for `Set#initialize` and `Set.[]` for backwards compatibility, we should be consistent and call methods instead of underlying functions for every case where the methods were called in stdlib set. That will make it slower, though.
FWIW, in the code path you are using in stdlib Set, `Set#add` is not called directly, you are relying on `Set#merge` calling it. So this is at least a request to have `Set#initialize` call `Set#merge` and to have `Set#merge` call `Set#add` for every element.
ruby -v test.rb ruby 3.4.1 (2024-12-25 revision 48d4efcb85) +PRISM [arm64-darwin24] #<Foo: {3}>
I don't have an opinion, really. But this change in behavior is breaking our existing code, and I suspect we're not the only ones. ---------------------------------------- Bug #21396: Set#initialize should call Set#add on items passed in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21396#change-113593 * Author: tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ```ruby class Foo < Set def add(item) = super(item.bytesize) end x = Foo.new(["foo"]) p x p x.include?(3) ``` On Ruby 3.4 the output is this: ``` true ``` On Ruby master the output is this: ```
make run ./miniruby -I./lib -I. -I.ext/common -r./arm64-darwin24-fake ./test.rb #<Set: {"foo"}> false
The bug is that `initialize` is not calling `add` for the elements passed in, so the subclass doesn't get a chance to change them.
I've sent a PR here: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/13518
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/