Project

General

Profile

Actions

Misc #18803

closed

DevMeeting-2022-06-16

Added by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 3 months ago. Updated about 2 months ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
[ruby-core:108690]

Description

The next dev meeting

Date: 2022/06/16 13:00-17:00 (JST)
Log: https://github.com/ruby/dev-meeting-log/blob/master/DevMeeting-2022-06-16.md

  • Dev meeting IS NOT a decision-making place. All decisions should be done at the bug tracker.
  • Dev meeting is a place we can ask Matz, nobu, nurse and other developers directly.
  • Matz is a very busy person. Take this opportunity to ask him. If you can not attend, other attendees can ask instead of you (if attendees can understand your issue).
  • We will write a record of the discussion in the file or to each ticket in English.
  • All activities are best-effort (keep in mind that most of us are volunteer developers).
  • The date, time and place of the meeting are scheduled according to when/where we can reserve Matz's time.
  • DO NOT discuss then on this ticket, please.

Call for agenda items

If you have a ticket that you want matz and committers to discuss, please post it into this ticket in the following format:

* [Ticket ref] Ticket title (your name)
  * Comment (A summary of the ticket, why you put this ticket here, what point should be discussed, etc.)

Example:

* [Feature #14609] `Kernel#p` without args shows the receiver (ko1)
  * I feel this feature is very useful and some people say :+1: so let discuss this feature.
  • It is recommended to add a comment by 2022/06/13. We hold a preparatory meeting to create an agenda a few days before the dev-meeting.
  • The format is strict. We'll use this script to automatically create an markdown-style agenda. We may ignore a comment that does not follow the format.
  • Your comment is mandatory. We cannot read all discussion of the ticket in a limited time. We appreciate it if you could write a short summary and update from a previous discussion.

Related issues 1 (1 open0 closed)

Related to Ruby master - Misc #14770: [META] DevelopersMeetingOpenActions
Actions #1

Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 3 months ago

  • Related to Misc #14770: [META] DevelopersMeeting added

Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) 2 months ago

  • [Bug #18806] protected methods defined by refinements can't be called (shugo)

Updated by byroot (Jean Boussier) 2 months ago

  • [Bug #18813] Module#autoload isn't strict about the autoloaded constant (fxn)
    • module M; autoload :OpenSSL, "openssl"; end works but is inconsistent.
    • M.constants(false) # => [:OpenSSL]
    • M::OpenSSL # => ::OpenSSL
    • M.constants(false) # => []
    • Should we break it? deprecate it? do nothing?
    • There are some important gems relying on this currently, including bundler.

Updated by kddeisz (Kevin Newton) 2 months ago

  • [Feature #18773] Pass an optional range object to deconstruct
    • It can be very expensive to compute the array for matching against deconstruct
    • By passing a range object we can quickly dismiss matches that won't work
    • This can be done in a backward-compatible way by checking the arity of deconstruct

Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) 2 months ago

  • [Feature #18788] Support passing Regexp options as String to Regexp.new (jeremyevans0)
    • Do we want to add support for Regexp.new(code, options), where options is a string (e.g. 'im').
    • @nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) pointed out it is already possible to get identical behavior using Regexp.new("(?#{options}:#{code})").
  • [Feature #18749] Strangeness of endless inclusive ranges (jeremyevans0)
    • Currently, we support both endless inclusive ranges and endless exclusive ranges.
    • Endless exclusive ranges do not contain endless inclusive ranges.
    • Do we want to convert endless inclusive ranges to endless exclusive ranges?
    • Do we want to keep supporting both, but consider them equal?
  • [Feature #18461] closures are capturing unused variables (jeremyevans0)
    • Should procs capture local variables they do not use syntactically inside the proc?
    • Currently, they do, which I believe is expected and desired.
    • Removing this ability would remove the ability to using eval inside the proc to get access to the local variable.
    • Changing the behavior could allow for earlier garbage collection, and potentially improve performance.
  • [Feature #18279] ENV.merge! support multiple arguments as Hash.merge! (jeremyevans0)

Updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) about 2 months ago

  • [Feature #18159] Integrate functionality of dead_end gem into Ruby (@duerst (Martin Dürst))
    • How about this?
    • IMO: We try to add dead_end as the default gems before releasing 3.2.0-preview2

Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) about 2 months ago

  • [Bug #18729] Method#owner and UnboundMethod#owner are incorrect after using Module#public/protected/private (eregon)
    • Please see https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18435#note-12
    • Removing "ZSUPER methods" solves everything: simpler semantics, easier to understand for everyone and Method/UnboundMethod objects behave like people expect, no special edge case for "ZSUPER methods". Also solves #18729 in a very simple way. And it is already what JRuby & TruffleRuby do.
    • "ZSUPER methods" seems accidental complexity from long ago, I believe it is time to remove it.
  • [Bug #18826] Symbol#to_proc inconsistent, sometimes calls private methods (eregon)
    • Let's fix so it never calls private methods at least
    • What about protected methods? I think it would be best for Symbol#to_proc procs to only call public methods, never protected/private, otherwise we have deep inconsistencies and complexity.
Actions #8

Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from Open to Closed
  • Description updated (diff)
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF