Issue #20191 has been updated by rubyFeedback (robert heiler). kddnewton wrote:
Python 2/3 changed the default encoding for string literals.
I think you need to consider to include the totality of the situation. For instance, we had print() and print in python as another major change; I had to adjust most of my old python scripts just for that alone. (I have significantly more ruby files though). To the actual topic at hand - personally I tend to use this header: #!/usr/bin/ruby -w # Encoding: UTF-8 # frozen_string_literal: true # =========================================================================== # I actually aliased that via the commandline, and automatically assign it to the xorg-buffer (on Linux), to then copy/paste it into a new .rb file. Or I just auto-generate a new .rb file from scratch, which fills up a default template I use for ruby classes. There may not be a huge need for the above four lines, but I kind of use that since ... I think ten years or so by now, something like that. I don't have a huge pro or con reason on the proposed change itself, by the way. I use UTF-8 by default, and I think I have not used the only other encoding I still use these days (binary) for a very long time - at the least not as a main encoding. I did, however had, initially have some problems transitioning into UTF-8, and that was a bit annoying (my old YAML files were not encoded in UTF-8 either, so I had to change all of them as well; it is often easier when there are small-ish changes, than when everything comes down at once, which is one reason why ruby 1.8.x towards ruby 2.x was not so simple initially, and a lack of documentation too, by the way). There is one part I disagree with, though, and this is that only rubygems.org is evaluated. There is more ruby code out there than "merely" hosted on rubygems.org, so we need to somehow consider this as well. Perhaps for a ruby 4 roadmap towards 2030 this can be kept in mind, but even then I think the objective trade-offs (advantages and benefits) should be kept in mind. Personally it won't affect me much, I think, as I use UTF-8 all the time. I'd probably not even change my auto-generating code, as I have gotten so used to it as a habit, even if it were no longer necessary. (Although, admittedly, IF it were not necessary, then one can argue that it could be omitted, thus saving some space from files. Even then I think it is a fairly minor inconvenience to keep it really. If we want to improve ruby for ruby 4, then perhaps we should consider a "ruby as fast as C", e. g. a crystal-like ruby, but not crystal. I digress though.) ---------------------------------------- Misc #20191: Deprecate magic encoding comment https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20191#change-106438 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Rejected * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I would like to ask that we deprecate the magic encoding comment, and instead require all source files to be encoded in UTF-8. There would be many benefits to the performance of both the parser and compiler. It would also help to simplify both. For example, right now a string literal in a file encoded in US-ASCII can result in 3 different encodings, depending on its internal bytes. If the file is encoded in UTF-8, it can only be a UTF-8 string. The encoding comment itself is not very commonly used in gems. If you take the top 100 most downloaded gem versions from rubygems.org and look at the resolved encoding of all of the files, you get: - UTF-8: 11554 - ASCII-8BIT: 35 - US-ASCII: 10 For all of the most recent versions of gems on rubygems.org, you get: - UTF-8: 2967421 - US-ASCII: 20130 - ASCII-8BIT: 9237 - ISO-8859-1: 87 - Windows-1252: 45 - Shift_JIS: 32 - Windows-31J: 22 - Windows-1251: 15 - EUC-JP: 11 - GBK: 4 - KOI8-R: 3 - ISO-8859-15: 2 - UTF8-MAC: 1 - invalid: 33 Note that "invalid" here could have worked on some rubies < 3.2 if they used Encoding#replicate. If we were to change this, the main breaking change concern would be the encoding of strings and symbols that would leave the context of the file by virtue of a constant read/method call. That's why I think it should first be deprecated in a minor release, then removed in the next major. At the moment this would mean for the top 100 gems we would be worried about 0.39% of files, and on rubygems.org as a whole we would be worried about 0.99% of files. If deprecating the entire encoding comment is unacceptable from a compatibility point of view, I would suggest we try only allowing UTF-8, US-ASCII, and ASCII-8BIT. This would still have a lot of value/simplifications/performance opportunities, at the expense of still needing to be parsed and checked. On the top 100 gems this would mean no files would have to change, and on rubygems.org as a whole it would mean we would be worried about 0.009% of files. That being said, if we're going to deprecate this at all, we should probably just do it all the way to get the full benefit. (In case you want to check the math, the script used to calculate these is attached.) ---Files-------------------------------- gems.rb (4.33 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/