Issue #19117 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #note-21:

* How much impact does exception generation have on performance? (Each frame of the backtrace needs to maintain self)

That's a good point. While the method name can be stored in the bytecode or so, not so much for the module name (especially since it can get a proper name later). In many cases it can be known statically or is the same when defining the method, but not always (e.g. `MyStruct = Struct.new(:x) { def foo; end; }`). Maybe we should only use this notation when the module name is known statically? ---------------------------------------- Feature #19117: Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19117#change-105481 * Author: byroot (Jean Boussier) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Target version: 3.4 ---------------------------------------- ``` module Foo class Bar def inspect 1 + '1' end end end p Foo::Bar.new ``` This code produce the following backtrace: ``` /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `+': String can't be coerced into Integer (TypeError) from /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `inspect' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `p' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `<main>' ``` This works, but on large codebases and large backtraces the method name isn't always all that revealing, most of the time you need to open many of the locations listed in the backtrace to really understand what is going on. I propose that we also include the owner name: ``` /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `Integer#+': String can't be coerced into Integer (TypeError) from /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `Foo::Bar#inspect' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `Kernel#p' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `<main>' ``` I believe that in many case it would allow to much better understand the backtrace without having to jump back and forth between it and the source code. This is inspired by @ivoanjo 's `backtracie` gem: https://github.com/ivoanjo/backtracie -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/