Issue #20090 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
Backport changed from 3.0: DONTNEED, 3.1: DONTNEED, 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: DONE to 3.0:
DONTNEED, 3.1: DONTNEED, 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: REQUIRED
I confirmed.
@naruse
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/f8f0d342e48a38caac6d32b438c145bb581a51e6 seems
wrong commit. Should we revert it and apply
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/596db9c1f486d6609a4e97d82c8c71b54609fb6f again?
----------------------------------------
Bug #20090: Anonymous arguments are now syntax errors in unambiguous cases
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20090#change-107035
* Author: willcosgrove (Will Cosgrove)
* Status: Closed
* ruby -v: ruby 3.3.0 (2023-12-25 revision 5124f9ac75) [arm64-darwin23]
* Backport: 3.0: DONTNEED, 3.1: DONTNEED, 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: REQUIRED
----------------------------------------
It looks like the changes that were made in #19370 may have gone further than intended.
It's also possible I'm misunderstanding what decision was made. But it was my
understanding that the goal was to make ambiguous cases a syntax error. The test cases
added are all testing the ambiguous cases:
```rb
assert_syntax_error("def b(&) ->(&) {c(&)} end", /anonymous block
parameter is also used/)
# ...
assert_syntax_error("def b(*) ->(*) {c(*)} end", /anonymous rest parameter is
also used/)
assert_syntax_error("def b(a, *) ->(*) {c(1, *)} end", /anonymous rest
parameter is also used/)
assert_syntax_error("def b(*) ->(a, *) {c(*)} end", /anonymous rest parameter
is also used/)
# ...
assert_syntax_error("def b(**) ->(**) {c(**)} end", /anonymous keyword rest
parameter is also used/)
assert_syntax_error("def b(k:, **) ->(**) {c(k: 1, **)} end", /anonymous
keyword rest parameter is also used/)
assert_syntax_error("def b(**) ->(k:, **) {c(**)} end", /anonymous keyword
rest parameter is also used/)
```
However it is now also producing syntax errors in all of these cases:
```rb
def b(&) -> { c(&) } end
def b(*) -> { c(*) } end
def b(a, *) -> { c(1, *) } end
def b(*) ->(a) { c(a, *) } end
def b(**) -> { c(**) } end
def b(k:, **) -> { c(k: 1, **) } end
def b(**) ->(k:) { c(k:, **) } end
```
Again, it's possible I misunderstood the scope of the previous change. But it would be
sad to lose the unambiguous case, as I've used that pattern quite a bit in my own
projects.
This is my first time opening an issue here, so I apologize in advance if I've done
anything non-standard.
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/