Issue #20965 has been updated by shan (Shannon Skipper). It does seem like that last one should be `[:it]` for consistency if it wasn't intentional. +1 An aside, but it's also interesting that using `_2` causes `_1` to also be defined under Binding#local_variables. ``` ruby proc { _9; local_variables }.call # => [:_1, :_2, :_3, :_4, :_5, :_6, :_7, :_8, :_9] proc { it; local_variables }.call # => [] ``` ---------------------------------------- Bug #20965: `it` vs `binding.local_variables` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20965#change-111074 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 3.4.0dev (2024-12-15T13:36:38Z master 366fd9642f) +PRISM [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 3.1: DONTNEED, 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: DONTNEED ---------------------------------------- `it` is not available in the list of `binding.local_varaibles`, **unlike** numbered parameters: ```ruby p(proc { binding.local_variables }.call) # [] p(proc { |x| binding.local_variables }.call) # [:x] p(proc { _1; binding.local_variables }.call) # [:_1] p(proc { vars = binding.local_variables; _1; vars }.call) # [:_1, :vars] p(proc { it; binding.local_variables }.call) # [] ``` I wonder if it is deliberate or accidental. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/