[ruby-core:117812] [Ruby master Bug#20478] Circular parameter syntax error rules
Issue #20478 has been reported by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20478: Circular parameter syntax error rules https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20478 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I would like to revisit https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16343. These cases are syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = ->() { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end # no block parameters def foo(bar = baz { _1 + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes def foo(bar = baz { it + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes ``` These cases are not syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz) { bar }) end # lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { || bar }) end # no block parameters but empty pipes def foo(bar = baz { |qux| bar }) end # block parameters ``` I don't think these rules are very intuitive, and they feel somewhat arbitrary. I would like to suggest we change them to be either: * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at any scope depth * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at depth 0 Either one is fine by me, but gating the syntax error based on the presence of pipes is really confusing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #20478 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). Given that these `Proc`s are only created if the argument `bar` is not assigned, should they all be syntax errors? ---------------------------------------- Bug #20478: Circular parameter syntax error rules https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20478#change-108234 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I would like to revisit https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16343. These cases are syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = ->() { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end # no block parameters def foo(bar = baz { _1 + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes def foo(bar = baz { it + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes ``` These cases are not syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz) { bar }) end # lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { || bar }) end # no block parameters but empty pipes def foo(bar = baz { |qux| bar }) end # block parameters ``` I don't think these rules are very intuitive, and they feel somewhat arbitrary. I would like to suggest we change them to be either: * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at any scope depth * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at depth 0 Either one is fine by me, but gating the syntax error based on the presence of pipes is really confusing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #20478 has been updated by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). Yes, I very much think they should all be syntax errors. ---------------------------------------- Bug #20478: Circular parameter syntax error rules https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20478#change-108237 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I would like to revisit https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16343. These cases are syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = ->() { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end # no block parameters def foo(bar = baz { _1 + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes def foo(bar = baz { it + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes ``` These cases are not syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz) { bar }) end # lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { || bar }) end # no block parameters but empty pipes def foo(bar = baz { |qux| bar }) end # block parameters ``` I don't think these rules are very intuitive, and they feel somewhat arbitrary. I would like to suggest we change them to be either: * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at any scope depth * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at depth 0 Either one is fine by me, but gating the syntax error based on the presence of pipes is really confusing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #20478 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). Even this should be a syntax error? ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz = bar) {}) end ``` That means it needs to manage the list of yet-unusable variables, not only tracking single variable. ---------------------------------------- Bug #20478: Circular parameter syntax error rules https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20478#change-108242 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I would like to revisit https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16343. These cases are syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = ->() { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end # no block parameters def foo(bar = baz { _1 + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes def foo(bar = baz { it + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes ``` These cases are not syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz) { bar }) end # lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { || bar }) end # no block parameters but empty pipes def foo(bar = baz { |qux| bar }) end # block parameters ``` I don't think these rules are very intuitive, and they feel somewhat arbitrary. I would like to suggest we change them to be either: * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at any scope depth * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at depth 0 Either one is fine by me, but gating the syntax error based on the presence of pipes is really confusing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #20478 has been updated by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). I figured that was already happening for the "unused" warning. ---------------------------------------- Bug #20478: Circular parameter syntax error rules https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20478#change-108273 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I would like to revisit https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16343. These cases are syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = ->() { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end # no block parameters def foo(bar = baz { _1 + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes def foo(bar = baz { it + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes ``` These cases are not syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz) { bar }) end # lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { || bar }) end # no block parameters but empty pipes def foo(bar = baz { |qux| bar }) end # block parameters ``` I don't think these rules are very intuitive, and they feel somewhat arbitrary. I would like to suggest we change them to be either: * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at any scope depth * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at depth 0 Either one is fine by me, but gating the syntax error based on the presence of pipes is really confusing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #20478 has been updated by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). @nobu another option would be to delete those tests and leave it up to the parser instead of forcing parse.y to implement it. Specifically I'm talking about: ``` o = Object.new assert_warn("") do o.instance_eval("def foo(var: bar {| | var}) var end") end o = Object.new assert_warn("") do o.instance_eval("def foo(var: bar {|| var}) var end") end ``` and ``` o = Object.new assert_warn("") do o.instance_eval("def foo(var = bar {| | var}) var end") end o = Object.new assert_warn("") do o.instance_eval("def foo(var = bar {|| var}) var end") end ``` If it's too complicated to implement in parse.y, then removing these tests would be a good compromise. These tests themselves are the issue blocking me. ---------------------------------------- Bug #20478: Circular parameter syntax error rules https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20478#change-108360 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I would like to revisit https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16343. These cases are syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = ->() { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end # no block parameters def foo(bar = baz { _1 + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes def foo(bar = baz { it + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes ``` These cases are not syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz) { bar }) end # lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { || bar }) end # no block parameters but empty pipes def foo(bar = baz { |qux| bar }) end # block parameters ``` I don't think these rules are very intuitive, and they feel somewhat arbitrary. I would like to suggest we change them to be either: * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at any scope depth * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at depth 0 Either one is fine by me, but gating the syntax error based on the presence of pipes is really confusing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #20478 has been updated by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). If we go with only syntax errors at depth 0, then this: ```ruby def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end ``` should not be a syntax error either. I think that makes sense, because the `baz` method could use `instance_exec`/`instance_eval` so we don't know if `bar` is going to be the same variable here or not. ---------------------------------------- Bug #20478: Circular parameter syntax error rules https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20478#change-108410 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I would like to revisit https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16343. These cases are syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = ->() { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end # no block parameters def foo(bar = baz { _1 + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes def foo(bar = baz { it + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes ``` These cases are not syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz) { bar }) end # lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { || bar }) end # no block parameters but empty pipes def foo(bar = baz { |qux| bar }) end # block parameters ``` I don't think these rules are very intuitive, and they feel somewhat arbitrary. I would like to suggest we change them to be either: * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at any scope depth * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at depth 0 Either one is fine by me, but gating the syntax error based on the presence of pipes is really confusing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #20478 has been updated by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). Also: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end def foo(bar = ->( ) { bar }) end def foo(bar = ->(_) { bar }) end ``` Two of these are a syntax error, but I think either all of them should be or none of them should be. ---------------------------------------- Bug #20478: Circular parameter syntax error rules https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20478#change-108411 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I would like to revisit https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16343. These cases are syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = ->() { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end # no block parameters def foo(bar = baz { _1 + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes def foo(bar = baz { it + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes ``` These cases are not syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz) { bar }) end # lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { || bar }) end # no block parameters but empty pipes def foo(bar = baz { |qux| bar }) end # block parameters ``` I don't think these rules are very intuitive, and they feel somewhat arbitrary. I would like to suggest we change them to be either: * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at any scope depth * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at depth 0 Either one is fine by me, but gating the syntax error based on the presence of pipes is really confusing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #20478 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Discussed at the dev meeting. @matz said all cases should be accepted with no syntax error. So `def foo(bar = bar) = bar; foo` will return `nil` with no warning and error. ---------------------------------------- Bug #20478: Circular parameter syntax error rules https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20478#change-108687 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I would like to revisit https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16343. These cases are syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = ->() { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end # no block parameters def foo(bar = baz { _1 + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes def foo(bar = baz { it + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes ``` These cases are not syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz) { bar }) end # lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { || bar }) end # no block parameters but empty pipes def foo(bar = baz { |qux| bar }) end # block parameters ``` I don't think these rules are very intuitive, and they feel somewhat arbitrary. I would like to suggest we change them to be either: * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at any scope depth * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at depth 0 Either one is fine by me, but gating the syntax error based on the presence of pipes is really confusing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #20478 has been updated by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). Status changed from Open to Closed Merged. ---------------------------------------- Bug #20478: Circular parameter syntax error rules https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20478#change-108712 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Closed * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I would like to revisit https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16343. These cases are syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = ->() { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end # no block parameters def foo(bar = baz { _1 + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes def foo(bar = baz { it + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes ``` These cases are not syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz) { bar }) end # lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { || bar }) end # no block parameters but empty pipes def foo(bar = baz { |qux| bar }) end # block parameters ``` I don't think these rules are very intuitive, and they feel somewhat arbitrary. I would like to suggest we change them to be either: * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at any scope depth * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at depth 0 Either one is fine by me, but gating the syntax error based on the presence of pipes is really confusing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #20478 has been updated by Earlopain (Earlopain _). This used to emit a warning since all the way back from Ruby 2.2, before it was invalid syntax. Should the warning be reintroduced? ---------------------------------------- Bug #20478: Circular parameter syntax error rules https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20478#change-111118 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Closed * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I would like to revisit https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16343. These cases are syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = -> { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = ->() { bar }) end # no lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { bar }) end # no block parameters def foo(bar = baz { _1 + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes def foo(bar = baz { it + bar }) end # parameters, but no pipes ``` These cases are not syntax errors: ```ruby def foo(bar = ->(baz) { bar }) end # lambda parameters def foo(bar = baz { || bar }) end # no block parameters but empty pipes def foo(bar = baz { |qux| bar }) end # block parameters ``` I don't think these rules are very intuitive, and they feel somewhat arbitrary. I would like to suggest we change them to be either: * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at any scope depth * Syntax error is raised if the parameter is ever read in its default value at depth 0 Either one is fine by me, but gating the syntax error based on the presence of pipes is really confusing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
participants (4)
-
Earlopain (Earlopain _) -
kddnewton (Kevin Newton)
-
mame (Yusuke Endoh)
-
nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada)