Issue #20884 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Discussed at the dev meeting. @matz decided that Ruby 3.4 warns when ::Ruby is defined. ``` $ ./miniruby -we 'Ruby = 1' -e:1: warning: ::Ruby is reserved for Ruby 3.5 ``` If there are no major problems, it is likely that `module Ruby` will be predefined in Ruby 3.5. However, note that what to put in the `::Ruby` module requires futher discussion. * `Ruby::Backtrace::Location` was opposed by nobu. * `AbstractSyntaxTree` is in RubyVM to make it explicitly implementation-dependent, so it will not be moved to `Ruby::`. * No one sympathized with `Ruby.argv0` in the dev meeting. `Process.argv0` is good enough. * #6648 is not agreed at the specification level, and I think it is unlikely to be a class method in `::Ruby`. ---------------------------------------- Feature #20884: reserve "Ruby" toplevel module for Ruby language https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20884#change-110976 * Author: Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- `Ruby` would be a convenient namespace for many features of the Ruby language, in particular APIs related to the interpreter. All these constants: RUBY_VERSION RUBY_RELEASE_DATE RUBY_PLATFORM RUBY_PATCHLEVEL RUBY_REVISION RUBY_COPYRIGHT RUBY_ENGINE RUBY_ENGINE_VERSION RUBY_DESCRIPTION would have made a lot of sense as `Ruby::VERSION` etc. `Thread::Backtrace::Location` would have made a lot of sense as `Ruby::Backtrace::Location` `RubyVM` is considered specific to CRuby; so `RubyVM::AbstractSyntaxTree` should be `Ruby::AbstractSyntaxTree` if it is meant to be present in other implementations. In #6648 there's a bit of contention over where `ruby_args` should be. `RubyVM`, `RbConfig`, `Process` have all been proposed, but `Ruby` would be an excellent choice. `Process.argv0` was added in Ruby 2.1 but the `Process` namespace is really about OS-level process control (fork, signals, euid, limits) while this argv0 is not (in `ps` it's neither value of COMMAND nor CMD) so it would have made sense as `Ruby.argv0` The "ruby" gem name is reserved, so there's no conflict. https://rubygems.org/gems/ruby All in all, "Ruby" is an appropriate namespace for many Ruby things. We don't want to break compatibility over this, but we could at least start small by reserving the namespace, and see how it grows from there. module Ruby VERSION = ::RUBY_VERSION end -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/