[ruby-core:111953] [Ruby master Bug#19362] #dup on Proc doesn't call initialize_dup
Issue #19362 has been reported by zverok (Victor Shepelev). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19362: #dup on Proc doesn't call initialize_dup https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19362 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- In #17545, `#dup` had changed to create an instance of the subclass. It, though, doesn't invoke `initialize_dup` of the subclass, unlike other standard classes. ```ruby class MyAry < Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyString < String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyProc < Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end MyString.new('test').dup # prints MyString, "test" MyAry.new(['test']).dup # prints MyAry, ["test"] MyProc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` This makes the change in #17545 useless: while inheriting from core classes is indeed marginal, one of author's intention might be carrying additional information with the Proc instance, and bypassing `#initialize_dup` makes it impossible to maintain this information. It seems that actually `#initialize_dup` is also invoked on the core classes themselves, but ignored on `Proc`. ```ruby class Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end 'test'.dup # prints String, "test" ['test'].dup # prints Array, ["test"] Proc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` Which is an even more marginal problem but still an inconsistency. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19362 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). While `String.allocate` and `Array.allocate` are defined, `Proc.allocate` is not. What do you expect as the argument of `Proc#initialize_copy`? ---------------------------------------- Bug #19362: #dup on Proc doesn't call initialize_dup https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19362#change-101394 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- In #17545, `#dup` had changed to create an instance of the subclass. It, though, doesn't invoke `initialize_dup` of the subclass, unlike other standard classes. ```ruby class MyAry < Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyString < String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyProc < Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end MyString.new('test').dup # prints MyString, "test" MyAry.new(['test']).dup # prints MyAry, ["test"] MyProc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` This makes the change in #17545 useless: while inheriting from core classes is indeed marginal, one of author's intention might be carrying additional information with the Proc instance, and bypassing `#initialize_dup` makes it impossible to maintain this information. It seems that actually `#initialize_dup` is also invoked on the core classes themselves, but ignored on `Proc`. ```ruby class Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end 'test'.dup # prints String, "test" ['test'].dup # prints Array, ["test"] Proc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` Which is an even more marginal problem but still an inconsistency. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19362 has been updated by zverok (Victor Shepelev).
What do you expect as self of `Proc#initialize_dup`?
@nobu "the current proc object", like in any `initialize[...]`. I am not sure I understand why is it impossible. From layman's point of view, those two should work the same way: ```ruby class TaggedString < String attr_reader :tag def initialize(val, tag:) super(val) @tag = tag end def initialize_dup(other) super @tag = other.tag end end class TaggedProc < Proc attr_reader :tag def initialize(tag, &block) super(&block) @tag = tag end def initialize_dup(other) super @tag = other.tag end end s = TaggedString.new('test', tag: 'foo') p s.tag #=> 'foo' p s.dup.tag #=> 'foo' t = TaggedProc.new('test') { } p t.tag #=> 'test' p t.dup.tag #=> expected 'test', got nil ``` Otherwise, I am not sure what's the semantics of `Proc#dup` and how it is supposed to be used. And if it isn't supposed to, it might make sense to prohibit its usage or at least document the quirks?.. ---------------------------------------- Bug #19362: #dup on Proc doesn't call initialize_dup https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19362#change-101397 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Feedback * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- In #17545, `#dup` had changed to create an instance of the subclass. It, though, doesn't invoke `initialize_dup` of the subclass, unlike other standard classes. ```ruby class MyAry < Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyString < String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyProc < Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end MyString.new('test').dup # prints MyString, "test" MyAry.new(['test']).dup # prints MyAry, ["test"] MyProc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` This makes the change in #17545 useless: while inheriting from core classes is indeed marginal, one of author's intention might be carrying additional information with the Proc instance, and bypassing `#initialize_dup` makes it impossible to maintain this information. It seems that actually `#initialize_dup` is also invoked on the core classes themselves, but ignored on `Proc`. ```ruby class Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end 'test'.dup # prints String, "test" ['test'].dup # prints Array, ["test"] Proc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` Which is an even more marginal problem but still an inconsistency. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19362 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). Status changed from Feedback to Open https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/7178 ---------------------------------------- Bug #19362: #dup on Proc doesn't call initialize_dup https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19362#change-101425 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- In #17545, `#dup` had changed to create an instance of the subclass. It, though, doesn't invoke `initialize_dup` of the subclass, unlike other standard classes. ```ruby class MyAry < Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyString < String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyProc < Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end MyString.new('test').dup # prints MyString, "test" MyAry.new(['test']).dup # prints MyAry, ["test"] MyProc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` This makes the change in #17545 useless: while inheriting from core classes is indeed marginal, one of author's intention might be carrying additional information with the Proc instance, and bypassing `#initialize_dup` makes it impossible to maintain this information. It seems that actually `#initialize_dup` is also invoked on the core classes themselves, but ignored on `Proc`. ```ruby class Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end 'test'.dup # prints String, "test" ['test'].dup # prints Array, ["test"] Proc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` Which is an even more marginal problem but still an inconsistency. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19362 has been updated by zverok (Victor Shepelev). @nobu Thanks! Will this PR be merged? (I secretly hoped to have it in 3.2.1 :))) ---------------------------------------- Bug #19362: #dup on Proc doesn't call initialize_dup https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19362#change-101733 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- In #17545, `#dup` had changed to create an instance of the subclass. It, though, doesn't invoke `initialize_dup` of the subclass, unlike other standard classes. ```ruby class MyAry < Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyString < String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyProc < Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end MyString.new('test').dup # prints MyString, "test" MyAry.new(['test']).dup # prints MyAry, ["test"] MyProc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` This makes the change in #17545 useless: while inheriting from core classes is indeed marginal, one of author's intention might be carrying additional information with the Proc instance, and bypassing `#initialize_dup` makes it impossible to maintain this information. It seems that actually `#initialize_dup` is also invoked on the core classes themselves, but ignored on `Proc`. ```ruby class Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end 'test'.dup # prints String, "test" ['test'].dup # prints Array, ["test"] Proc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` Which is an even more marginal problem but still an inconsistency. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19362 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). I'm not sure if this is a bug or intentional. Please add this to [Misc #19429]. ---------------------------------------- Bug #19362: #dup on Proc doesn't call initialize_dup https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19362#change-101772 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- In #17545, `#dup` had changed to create an instance of the subclass. It, though, doesn't invoke `initialize_dup` of the subclass, unlike other standard classes. ```ruby class MyAry < Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyString < String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyProc < Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end MyString.new('test').dup # prints MyString, "test" MyAry.new(['test']).dup # prints MyAry, ["test"] MyProc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` This makes the change in #17545 useless: while inheriting from core classes is indeed marginal, one of author's intention might be carrying additional information with the Proc instance, and bypassing `#initialize_dup` makes it impossible to maintain this information. It seems that actually `#initialize_dup` is also invoked on the core classes themselves, but ignored on `Proc`. ```ruby class Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end 'test'.dup # prints String, "test" ['test'].dup # prints Array, ["test"] Proc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` Which is an even more marginal problem but still an inconsistency. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19362 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto). Accepted, mostly for the sake of consistency. As a general suggestion, making subclasses from built-in classes is not a good idea in Ruby, though. Matz. ---------------------------------------- Bug #19362: #dup on Proc doesn't call initialize_dup https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19362#change-102254 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- In #17545, `#dup` had changed to create an instance of the subclass. It, though, doesn't invoke `initialize_dup` of the subclass, unlike other standard classes. ```ruby class MyAry < Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyString < String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyProc < Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end MyString.new('test').dup # prints MyString, "test" MyAry.new(['test']).dup # prints MyAry, ["test"] MyProc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` This makes the change in #17545 useless: while inheriting from core classes is indeed marginal, one of author's intention might be carrying additional information with the Proc instance, and bypassing `#initialize_dup` makes it impossible to maintain this information. It seems that actually `#initialize_dup` is also invoked on the core classes themselves, but ignored on `Proc`. ```ruby class Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end 'test'.dup # prints String, "test" ['test'].dup # prints Array, ["test"] Proc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` Which is an even more marginal problem but still an inconsistency. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #19362 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). I've forgot this, but isn't this a feature require but not a bug? ---------------------------------------- Bug #19362: #dup on Proc doesn't call initialize_dup https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19362#change-105087 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- In #17545, `#dup` had changed to create an instance of the subclass. It, though, doesn't invoke `initialize_dup` of the subclass, unlike other standard classes. ```ruby class MyAry < Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyString < String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class MyProc < Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end MyString.new('test').dup # prints MyString, "test" MyAry.new(['test']).dup # prints MyAry, ["test"] MyProc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` This makes the change in #17545 useless: while inheriting from core classes is indeed marginal, one of author's intention might be carrying additional information with the Proc instance, and bypassing `#initialize_dup` makes it impossible to maintain this information. It seems that actually `#initialize_dup` is also invoked on the core classes themselves, but ignored on `Proc`. ```ruby class Array def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class String def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end class Proc def initialize_dup(...) p(self.class, ...) super end end 'test'.dup # prints String, "test" ['test'].dup # prints Array, ["test"] Proc.new { 'test' }.dup # doesn't print anything ``` Which is an even more marginal problem but still an inconsistency. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
participants (3)
-
matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) -
nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) -
zverok (Victor Shepelev)