Issue #16142 has been updated by byroot (Jean Boussier).
So what would be a good name?
What about `position`? I think it goes well together with `location`. ---------------------------------------- Feature #16142: Implement code_range in Proc and Method https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16142#change-106130 * Author: okuramasafumi (Masafumi OKURA) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # Abstract Add a new method `code_range` as an alternative to `source_location` to Proc and Method # Background I'd like to get a body from a Proc in TraceLocation gem (https://github.com/yhirano55/trace_location), in order to add what's executed to the output. There's no way to do that in current Ruby implementation, so as an alternative, I considered getting source code location of a Proc. # Proposal I propose that `Proc#code_range` and `Method#code_range`. Other names can work as well, for example `Proc#source_region`. It returns an array containing filename as a first argument and position information as a second array. For example: `a_proc.position # => [(irb), [1, 5, 3, 25]]` # Implementation I've implemented a simpler version of this, see gist for more details. https://gist.github.com/okuramasafumi/ac90bbf04a1c13b7d67954c9c5e62553 Notice I use `code_location` from iseq struct. # Discussion One might say that we can simply add columns and end position to Proc#source_location. However, this can easily brake existing apps such as Pry. It's also possible that we add additional keyword argument to `Proc#source_location`, for instance: `a_proc.source_location(including_range: true)` This change can also break existing apps since in old Rubies this keyword argument cannot be accepted. Therefore, adding a new method is better in terms of backward compatibility. It might be better at readability as well. # Summary I propose an API to get code position of Proc and Method so that we can get body of them (especially of a Proc). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/