February 2026 - ruby-dev - ml.ruby-lang.org

[ruby-dev:52199] [Ruby Misc#21881] Split the root box into the (newer) root box and the source of copied user boxes
by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) 24 Feb '26

24 Feb '26

Issue #21881 has been reported by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori). ---------------------------------------- Misc #21881: Split the root box into the (newer) root box and the source of copied user boxes https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21881 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- # Proposal This ticket proposes to: * have a new box type: the "source" box, used as the source of copied boxes when user boxes are created * split the "source" box from the root box just before loading "prelude.rb" and "gem_prelude.rb" * load "prelude.rb" and "gem_prelude.rb" in the root box after the "source" box creation * load "prelude.rb" and "gem_prelude.rb" in user boxes in the last step of those creation After this change, user boxes will be created very cleanly, without any side effects of codes that ran in the root box. The boxes in the runtime (technically, it starts only with the "source", then the "root" will be split from the "source"): ``` [While runtime initialization] - source (box_id=-1) [Just before loading prelude] - source (-1) - root (0) [After loading prelude] - source (-1) - root (0) - main (1, copied from -1) ``` This idea is discussed [here](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/language/box.md#split-ro… but I'm changing the names (root/builtin -> source/root) because the name and idea of the root box is known by Ruby users. ## Definition changes Currently (in Ruby 4.0), the prime classext (concatenated to RClass) is for the root box, and other optional classexts are for user boxes. After this change, the prime classext is for the source box. Even the root box also uses optional classexts. # Motivation The issues [#21324](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21324) and [#21830](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21830). RubyGems uses tons of .rb files and it loads/requires the files originally passed to Kernel#require or Kernel#load. Before [this change](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/13454), files are correctly loaded into the caller (user) box using an heuristic rule about the current/loading box. But the above change uses a more solid/non-heuristic rule to determine the current box, and as the result of it, RubyGems wrongly loads scripts into the root box. The solution is to load RubyGems in each user box. But the root box also needs to load RubyGems, and if user boxes are copied from the root box, user boxes can't load its own RubyGems. (A new mechanism to forcibly overwrite existing definitions is another option, but it looks too risky to introduce such new feature only for loading RubyGems in the root box.) So, the stored idea comes up again. Having the "source" box cleanly separated from the root box can solve this situation. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 3

[ruby-dev:52168] [Ruby Feature#21616] date ライブラリを deprecatedさせたい
by jinroq (Jinroq SAITOH) 13 Feb '26

13 Feb '26

Issue #21616 has been reported by jinroq (Jinroq SAITOH). ---------------------------------------- Feature #21616: date ライブラリを deprecated させたい https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21616 * Author: jinroq (Jinroq SAITOH) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- ### 概要 *date ライブラリが長期間メンテナンスされておらず、機能を time ライブラリに委譲して deprecated させたい* というお話が出ていると風の噂で耳にしましたが、どこまでを考えられているのかご意見をお聞きしたいです。 ### 確認事項 #### `Date._parse` を time に移植したい `Time._parse` なるものが実現できれば十分でしょうか？（それっぽく移植は[してみました](https://github.com/ruby/time/compare/m… #### `Date.strptime` を time に移植したい [date_strptime.c](https://github.com/ruby/date/blob/master/ext/date/date_str… をそのまま time に移植していいものでしょうか？「time に移植するならついでにこんな感じだと嬉しい」といった要望があったりするのでしょうか？ #### deprecated させた場合の影響範囲 deprecated はかなりのインパクトであり、様々な gem やプロダクトに影響を及ぼすかと思います。例えば「Ruby on Rails では誰に相談すべきか」など、どこまでを考慮すべきでしょうか？ -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 4

[ruby-dev:52196] [Ruby Feature#21857] Introduce to_proc pattern
by sanfrecce-osaka (Masatoshi Moritsuka) 09 Feb '26

09 Feb '26

Issue #21857 has been reported by sanfrecce-osaka (Masatoshi Moritsuka). ---------------------------------------- Feature #21857: Introduce to_proc pattern https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21857 * Author: sanfrecce-osaka (Masatoshi Moritsuka) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- When object has some logics, we can use `&object` syntax with Enumerable or Array, etc. ```ruby users.any?(&:admin?) ``` There are some times when I want to write pattern matching similar to the syntax, but currently we either have to write proc or combine pin operator with `to_proc`, which is a bit verbose. ```ruby users in [*, ^(:admin?.to_proc), *] users in [*, -> (user) { user.admin? }, *] ``` Therefore, I propose introducing a new pattern into pattern matching. The pattern matches an object such that `pattern.to_proc === object`. This allows us to write code with a familiarity close to the syntax we're accustomed to. ```ruby users in [*, &:admin?, *] ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 1