[ruby-core:111742] [Ruby master Feature#19326] Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor
Issue #19326 has been reported by sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi). ---------------------------------------- Feature #19326: Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19326 * Author: sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Example 1: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:271:in `new': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError) from scripts/run.rb:9:in `run' from scripts/run.rb:14:in `<main>' ``` Example 2: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:820:in `make_shareable': Proc's self is not shareable: #<Proc:0x00007f00394c38b8 scripts/run.rb:13> (Ractor::IsolationError) from scripts/run.rb:5:in `initialize' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `new' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `<main>' ``` Example 3: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval { Worker.new { 1 } } puts worker.run.take ``` Works, but having `Ractor.current.instance_eval` as a wrapper around the block is not ideal, as Ractor is supposed to be only an implementation detail in Worker. I know about https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243 and the discussion around `proc.bind(nil)`. That would actually be ideal, as for the purposes if why I want this functionality I don't care what `self` is in a block, and the less it has access to the better. The general idea is to have a Ractor be able to lazily execute an arbitrary proc. And all the bindings it would need would be passed explicitly, either through `args` in the constructor or through `send`/`receive`, so `self` would really not matter. The benefit: this would make it so concurrent code can be more easily be implemented with Ractors as currently you can execute an arbitrary proc by passing it to a Thread (but you don't get the nice data isolation). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19326 has been updated by luke-gru (Luke Gruber). If you want Ractor to be an implementation detail of Worker you could do: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run block = @block Ractor.current.instance_eval { Ractor.new(&block) } end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Just an idea :) ---------------------------------------- Feature #19326: Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19326#change-101367 * Author: sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Example 1: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:271:in `new': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError) from scripts/run.rb:9:in `run' from scripts/run.rb:14:in `<main>' ``` Example 2: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:820:in `make_shareable': Proc's self is not shareable: #<Proc:0x00007f00394c38b8 scripts/run.rb:13> (Ractor::IsolationError) from scripts/run.rb:5:in `initialize' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `new' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `<main>' ``` Example 3: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval { Worker.new { 1 } } puts worker.run.take ``` Works, but having `Ractor.current.instance_eval` as a wrapper around the block is not ideal, as Ractor is supposed to be only an implementation detail in Worker. I know about https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243 and the discussion around `proc.bind(nil)`. That would actually be ideal, as for the purposes if why I want this functionality I don't care what `self` is in a block, and the less it has access to the better. The general idea of Worker is to have a Ractor be able to lazily execute an arbitrary proc. And all the bindings it would need would be passed explicitly, either through `args` in the constructor or through `send`/`receive`, so `self` would really not matter. The benefit: this would make it so concurrent code can be more easily be implemented with Ractors as currently you can execute an arbitrary proc by passing it to a Thread (but you don't get the nice data isolation). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19326 has been updated by sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi). OK, I had absolutely no idea you could do that. Thanks for the suggestion! My impressions was `instance_eval` could only be used around where a block is *written*. Can we document this behaviour somewhere? Maybe in https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/3.2/Ractor.html right after the `Shareable and unshareable objects` section. I suspect many more people will hit the same wall as I had and would not have an easy time figuring it out. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19326: Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19326#change-101386 * Author: sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Example 1: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:271:in `new': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError) from scripts/run.rb:9:in `run' from scripts/run.rb:14:in `<main>' ``` Example 2: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:820:in `make_shareable': Proc's self is not shareable: #<Proc:0x00007f00394c38b8 scripts/run.rb:13> (Ractor::IsolationError) from scripts/run.rb:5:in `initialize' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `new' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `<main>' ``` Example 3: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval { Worker.new { 1 } } puts worker.run.take ``` Works, but having `Ractor.current.instance_eval` as a wrapper around the block is not ideal, as Ractor is supposed to be only an implementation detail in Worker. I know about https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243 and the discussion around `proc.bind(nil)`. That would actually be ideal, as for the purposes if why I want this functionality I don't care what `self` is in a block, and the less it has access to the better. The general idea of Worker is to have a Ractor be able to lazily execute an arbitrary proc. And all the bindings it would need would be passed explicitly, either through `args` in the constructor or through `send`/`receive`, so `self` would really not matter. The benefit: this would make it so concurrent code can be more easily be implemented with Ractors as currently you can execute an arbitrary proc by passing it to a Thread (but you don't get the nice data isolation). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19326 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). I'm not sure this behavior is intended, cc @ko1. I thought `Ractor.new` would only accept literal blocks. The problem is the usual "does not respect the intent of the writer of the block, which expected a specific self". Also it only works if you are fine to create a Ractor per block, which seems a big overhead. Maybe Proc#isolate(new_self) or so should be exposed. OTOH Ractor is incompatible with most gems out there, so seems of limited usefulness. For true parallelism compatible with existing Ruby code, use threads on TruffleRuby/JRuby. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19326: Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19326#change-101389 * Author: sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Example 1: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:271:in `new': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError) from scripts/run.rb:9:in `run' from scripts/run.rb:14:in `<main>' ``` Example 2: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:820:in `make_shareable': Proc's self is not shareable: #<Proc:0x00007f00394c38b8 scripts/run.rb:13> (Ractor::IsolationError) from scripts/run.rb:5:in `initialize' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `new' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `<main>' ``` Example 3: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval { Worker.new { 1 } } puts worker.run.take ``` Works, but having `Ractor.current.instance_eval` as a wrapper around the block is not ideal, as Ractor is supposed to be only an implementation detail in Worker. I know about https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243 and the discussion around `proc.bind(nil)`. That would actually be ideal, as for the purposes if why I want this functionality I don't care what `self` is in a block, and the less it has access to the better. The general idea of Worker is to have a Ractor be able to lazily execute an arbitrary proc. And all the bindings it would need would be passed explicitly, either through `args` in the constructor or through `send`/`receive`, so `self` would really not matter. The benefit: this would make it so concurrent code can be more easily be implemented with Ractors as currently you can execute an arbitrary proc by passing it to a Thread (but you don't get the nice data isolation). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19326 has been updated by sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi).
I thought Ractor.new would only accept literal blocks.
I hope not, passing an arbitrary block helps with building functionality on top of Ractors (that I want to do).
The problem is the usual "does not respect the intent of the writer of the block, which expected a specific self".
My "Worker" class will have documentation stating that self is replaced and all dependencies need to be passed through the constructor so that's not going to be an issue.
Also it only works if you are fine to create a Ractor per block, which seems a big overhead.
I could have a "Ractor pool" basically limiting the number of Ractors that can run at the same time. Still, the overhead could be improved with future Ruby releases (just like it is for Erlang/Elixir). For all practical purposes so far the overhead is negligible compared to the work done in the blocks.
Maybe Proc#isolate(new_self) or so should be exposed.
This would be a nice functionality to have, indeed.
OTOH Ractor is incompatible with most gems out there, so seems of limited usefulness.
It will become better when Ractor is stabilised, right now I have all I need working.
For true parallelism compatible with existing Ruby code, use threads on TruffleRuby/JRuby.
I'd rather use the real Ruby and stay away from Oracle. All that being said, I'm really interested to see how this functionality evolves. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19326: Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19326#change-101390 * Author: sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Example 1: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:271:in `new': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError) from scripts/run.rb:9:in `run' from scripts/run.rb:14:in `<main>' ``` Example 2: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:820:in `make_shareable': Proc's self is not shareable: #<Proc:0x00007f00394c38b8 scripts/run.rb:13> (Ractor::IsolationError) from scripts/run.rb:5:in `initialize' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `new' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `<main>' ``` Example 3: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval { Worker.new { 1 } } puts worker.run.take ``` Works, but having `Ractor.current.instance_eval` as a wrapper around the block is not ideal, as Ractor is supposed to be only an implementation detail in Worker. I know about https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243 and the discussion around `proc.bind(nil)`. That would actually be ideal, as for the purposes if why I want this functionality I don't care what `self` is in a block, and the less it has access to the better. The general idea of Worker is to have a Ractor be able to lazily execute an arbitrary proc. And all the bindings it would need would be passed explicitly, either through `args` in the constructor or through `send`/`receive`, so `self` would really not matter. The benefit: this would make it so concurrent code can be more easily be implemented with Ractors as currently you can execute an arbitrary proc by passing it to a Thread (but you don't get the nice data isolation). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19326 has been updated by luke-gru (Luke Gruber). My thought is that when a block like that is passed to a ractor, it should duplicate the block and check the shareability of the block without checking `self` (because it will be changed). ---------------------------------------- Feature #19326: Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19326#change-101398 * Author: sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Example 1: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:271:in `new': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError) from scripts/run.rb:9:in `run' from scripts/run.rb:14:in `<main>' ``` Example 2: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:820:in `make_shareable': Proc's self is not shareable: #<Proc:0x00007f00394c38b8 scripts/run.rb:13> (Ractor::IsolationError) from scripts/run.rb:5:in `initialize' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `new' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `<main>' ``` Example 3: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval { Worker.new { 1 } } puts worker.run.take ``` Works, but having `Ractor.current.instance_eval` as a wrapper around the block is not ideal, as Ractor is supposed to be only an implementation detail in Worker. I know about https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243 and the discussion around `proc.bind(nil)`. That would actually be ideal, as for the purposes if why I want this functionality I don't care what `self` is in a block, and the less it has access to the better. The general idea of Worker is to have a Ractor be able to lazily execute an arbitrary proc. And all the bindings it would need would be passed explicitly, either through `args` in the constructor or through `send`/`receive`, so `self` would really not matter. The benefit: this would make it so concurrent code can be more easily be implemented with Ractors as currently you can execute an arbitrary proc by passing it to a Thread (but you don't get the nice data isolation). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19326 has been updated by sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi). New example: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def start(*args) block = Ractor.make_shareable(@block) @ractor = Ractor.new(block, args) do |callable| message = receive callable.call(message) end self end def work(*args) @ractor.send(args) @ractor.take end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval do Worker.new { |args| puts args.inspect } end worker.start.work(1, 2, 3) ``` Say I don't want to just pass the bock as is to the Ractor, but I want to do some setup first within the Ractor itself. In that case I'm back to needing both `make_shareable` and the `instance_eval` around the literal block. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19326: Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19326#change-101410 * Author: sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Example 1: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:271:in `new': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError) from scripts/run.rb:9:in `run' from scripts/run.rb:14:in `<main>' ``` Example 2: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:820:in `make_shareable': Proc's self is not shareable: #<Proc:0x00007f00394c38b8 scripts/run.rb:13> (Ractor::IsolationError) from scripts/run.rb:5:in `initialize' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `new' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `<main>' ``` Example 3: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval { Worker.new { 1 } } puts worker.run.take ``` Works, but having `Ractor.current.instance_eval` as a wrapper around the block is not ideal, as Ractor is supposed to be only an implementation detail in Worker. I know about https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243 and the discussion around `proc.bind(nil)`. That would actually be ideal, as for the purposes if why I want this functionality I don't care what `self` is in a block, and the less it has access to the better. The general idea of Worker is to have a Ractor be able to lazily execute an arbitrary proc. And all the bindings it would need would be passed explicitly, either through `args` in the constructor or through `send`/`receive`, so `self` would really not matter. The benefit: this would make it so concurrent code can be more easily be implemented with Ractors as currently you can execute an arbitrary proc by passing it to a Thread (but you don't get the nice data isolation). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19326 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). Status changed from Open to Assigned Assignee set to ko1 (Koichi Sasada) ---------------------------------------- Feature #19326: Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19326#change-101411 * Author: sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi) * Status: Assigned * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ko1 (Koichi Sasada) ---------------------------------------- Example 1: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:271:in `new': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError) from scripts/run.rb:9:in `run' from scripts/run.rb:14:in `<main>' ``` Example 2: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:820:in `make_shareable': Proc's self is not shareable: #<Proc:0x00007f00394c38b8 scripts/run.rb:13> (Ractor::IsolationError) from scripts/run.rb:5:in `initialize' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `new' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `<main>' ``` Example 3: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval { Worker.new { 1 } } puts worker.run.take ``` Works, but having `Ractor.current.instance_eval` as a wrapper around the block is not ideal, as Ractor is supposed to be only an implementation detail in Worker. I know about https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243 and the discussion around `proc.bind(nil)`. That would actually be ideal, as for the purposes if why I want this functionality I don't care what `self` is in a block, and the less it has access to the better. The general idea of Worker is to have a Ractor be able to lazily execute an arbitrary proc. And all the bindings it would need would be passed explicitly, either through `args` in the constructor or through `send`/`receive`, so `self` would really not matter. The benefit: this would make it so concurrent code can be more easily be implemented with Ractors as currently you can execute an arbitrary proc by passing it to a Thread (but you don't get the nice data isolation). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19326 has been updated by luke-gru (Luke Gruber). Your new example, I think, is not possible with the current API. However, there is a bug in Ruby that I just found that allows it. ```ruby class Worker def start(&blk) blk = blk.curry # bug in ruby allows sharing of non-shareable proc Ractor.make_shareable(blk) @ractor = Ractor.new(blk) do |b| message = receive b.call(message) end self end def work(msg) @ractor.send(msg) @ractor.take end end worker = Worker.new worker.start { |args| p args } worker.work('msg') ``` This is a bug because in debug versions of ruby this crashes. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19326: Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19326#change-101438 * Author: sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi) * Status: Assigned * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ko1 (Koichi Sasada) ---------------------------------------- Example 1: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:271:in `new': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError) from scripts/run.rb:9:in `run' from scripts/run.rb:14:in `<main>' ``` Example 2: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:820:in `make_shareable': Proc's self is not shareable: #<Proc:0x00007f00394c38b8 scripts/run.rb:13> (Ractor::IsolationError) from scripts/run.rb:5:in `initialize' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `new' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `<main>' ``` Example 3: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval { Worker.new { 1 } } puts worker.run.take ``` Works, but having `Ractor.current.instance_eval` as a wrapper around the block is not ideal, as Ractor is supposed to be only an implementation detail in Worker. I know about https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243 and the discussion around `proc.bind(nil)`. That would actually be ideal, as for the purposes if why I want this functionality I don't care what `self` is in a block, and the less it has access to the better. The general idea of Worker is to have a Ractor be able to lazily execute an arbitrary proc. And all the bindings it would need would be passed explicitly, either through `args` in the constructor or through `send`/`receive`, so `self` would really not matter. The benefit: this would make it so concurrent code can be more easily be implemented with Ractors as currently you can execute an arbitrary proc by passing it to a Thread (but you don't get the nice data isolation). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19326 has been updated by forthoney (Seong-Heon Jung). Are there any updates on this issue? ---------------------------------------- Feature #19326: Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19326#change-105735 * Author: sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi) * Status: Assigned * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ko1 (Koichi Sasada) ---------------------------------------- Example 1: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:271:in `new': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError) from scripts/run.rb:9:in `run' from scripts/run.rb:14:in `<main>' ``` Example 2: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:820:in `make_shareable': Proc's self is not shareable: #<Proc:0x00007f00394c38b8 scripts/run.rb:13> (Ractor::IsolationError) from scripts/run.rb:5:in `initialize' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `new' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `<main>' ``` Example 3: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval { Worker.new { 1 } } puts worker.run.take ``` Works, but having `Ractor.current.instance_eval` as a wrapper around the block is not ideal, as Ractor is supposed to be only an implementation detail in Worker. I know about https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243 and the discussion around `proc.bind(nil)`. That would actually be ideal, as for the purposes if why I want this functionality I don't care what `self` is in a block, and the less it has access to the better. The general idea of Worker is to have a Ractor be able to lazily execute an arbitrary proc. And all the bindings it would need would be passed explicitly, either through `args` in the constructor or through `send`/`receive`, so `self` would really not matter. The benefit: this would make it so concurrent code can be more easily be implemented with Ractors as currently you can execute an arbitrary proc by passing it to a Thread (but you don't get the nice data isolation). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
participants (5)
-
Eregon (Benoit Daloze) -
forthoney (Seong-Heon Jung)
-
hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)
-
luke-gru (Luke Gruber)
-
sdwolfz