Issue #21654 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) wrote in #note-7:
What that really what you meant by "checking if Range#end is nil is good enough" ?
Yes. The original issue (#21513) was about the consistency between `(1..).to_a` and `(1..).to_set`. Since `(1..1/0.0).to_a` hangs, I think it's fine if `(1..1/0.0).to_set` also hangs. Admittedly, I'm biased: I generally feel that proactively raising exceptions for endless range operations is unnecessary. If an operation hangs, let it hang. Should we ask @matz to decide? ---------------------------------------- Bug #21654: Set#new calls extra methods compared to previous versions https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21654#change-115001 * Author: tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 3.5.0dev (2025-10-24T15:50:47Z master a9f24aaccb) +PRISM [arm64-darwin25] * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I'm trying to test Ruby 3.5.0 with our Rails application and we've found that `Set.new` is now causing extra database queries to happen. The changes in d4020dd5faf call "size" on enumerable objects that are passed to the `new` method, and this causes extra "COUNT" queries to happen with ActiveRecord associations. For example: ```ruby Set.new(some_activerecord_association) ``` Previously, the above code would only do one query by iterating over the association. Now it issues two queries, a count query, and then the normal query for results. Since d4020dd5faf is dealing with endless ranges, I would like to narrow the scope from all Enumerable objects to just Ranges. Unfortunately, I noticed we have a test like this: ```ruby assert_raise(ArgumentError) { Set.new(1.upto(Float::INFINITY)) } ``` I'm not sure how we can handle such a case without testing `size`. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/