Issue #19832 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). This is a great idea. No doubt there are many cases where it's impossible to know *for sure* if a method is destructive or not, but it should be possible to make it good enough to be useful.
Consider for instance Array#map. Is this method destructive? Well it could be used in a destructive way. But who knows.
Can you explain that? I don't see how Array#map could be destructive; even if the array is modified in the block, that is not a property of the #map method itself.
Whether a method call modifies its receiver or not ultimately does not fix until that method call actually modifies its receiver. This is how the language is designed to be.
I must ask, is that really relevant? `"x".freeze.concat("")` raises a FrozenError even though the receiver would not have been modified. Because String#concat is considered a destructive method no matter if it doesn't actually modify its receiver. We want to know if the method is generally destructive, not if a particular call is destructive. For core class methods I think this 'destructive' flag can be inferred from the presence of `rb_check_frozen`. In fact this would mesh very well with the way method signatures are defined in pseudo-ruby with the body defined via `Primitive`. Then `rb_check_frozen` could be pulled out of the C code and expressed as part of the method signature. For example something like ``` def concat(ary) Primitive.modify! #=> call rb_check_frozen, and also mark this method as destructive Primitive.rb_ary_concat(ary) end ``` For regular ruby code, probably the only way to know if a method is destructive is to check for instance variable assignments. It's not perfect but it should serve as a good enough definition of 'destructive'. It's almost certainly impossible to propagate the 'destructive' flag transitively (#foo would be considered non-destructive even if it calls #bar destructive method). But if a method has the `super` keyword it may be possible to inherit the 'destructive' flag from up the call chain. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19832: Method#destructive?, UnboundMethod#destructive? https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19832#change-104104 * Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I propose to add `destructive?` property to `Method` and `UnboundMethod` instances, which shall behave like: ```ruby String.instance_method(:<<).destructive? # => true String.instance_method(:+).destructive? # => false ``` One main purpose of using these classes is to inspect and make sure how a certain method behaves. Besides arity and owner, whether a method is destructive or not is one important piece of information, but currently, you cannot achieve that from `Method` or `UnboundMethod` instances. The problem is how to implement this. It is best if this information (whether or not a method is destructive) can be extracted automatically from the method definition. Unlike owner and arity, it may or may not be straightforward by statically analyzing the code. I think that, if a method definition defined at the ruby level does not call a destructive method anywhere within its own definition, and no dynamic method calls (`send`, `eval`, etc.) are made, then we can say that the method is non-destructive. If it does call, then the method is most likely a destructive method (it would not be destructive if the internally-called destructive method is applied to a different object. Or, we could rather call that a destructive method in the sense that it has a destructive side effect). If doing that turns out to be difficult for some or all cases, then a practical approach for the difficult cases is to label the methods as destructive or not, manually. We can perhaps have methods `Module#destructive` and `Module#non_destructive` which take (a) symbol/string argument(s) and return the method name(s) in symbol so that they can be used like: ```ruby class A destructive private def some_destructive_private_method ... end end ``` or ```ruby class A def foo; ... end def bar; ... end def baz; ... end non_destructive :foo, :baz destructive :bar end ``` or ```ruby class A non_destructive def foo; ... end def baz; ... end destructive def bar; ... end end ``` When the method is not (yet) specified whether destructive or not, the return value can be `"unknown"` (or `:unknown` or `nil`) by default. ```ruby String.instance_method(:<<).destructive? # => "unknown" ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/