I'd like to ractor.send(message) and express that message should be shareable. Currently I'm given two choices: move: true and move: false / nothing, neither of which have an effect if my message is shareable, and neither of which will tell me in case there's a bug in my program and message is not shareable.
Could we consider a slightly different API (for 3.0 or 3.1)?
ractor.send(message,pass: :copy)# => like current `move: false`ractor.send(message,pass: :move)# => like current `move: true`ractor.send(message,pass: :share)# => raise in case message is not shareableractor.send(message)# => same as `pass: :copy`
#send_ref(message) and raise an error if message is not a sharable?
There would be an easy way to deep-copy or deep-move an object, right? If you mean that the default should be pass: :share, then that seems fine by me.
We have to consider impact for passing arguments to Ractor.new(...). Right now these are copied; would it also raise if the arguments are not shareable? Would you add pass: option there too (see #17286)?
#send_ref(message) and raise an error if message is not a sharable?
There would be an easy way to deep-copy or deep-move an object, right? If you mean that the default should be pass: :share, then that seems fine by me.
We have to consider impact for passing arguments to Ractor.new(...). Right now these are copied; would it also raise if the arguments are not shareable? Would you add pass: option there too (see #17286)?
Oh, sorry, I didn't see the _ref part. So you are proposing a different method. In my mind, they are all ways of sending a message, it's just a question of method to cross the Ractor frontier. move/copy/has-cross-border-visa 😅
Otherwise we could have Ractor#move, Ractor#copy and Ractor#send, but seems to me like one method with one keyword (pass, via or transfer) is best API.
It also seems strange to write send_ref(true) or send_ref(42)...
Updated by 
Updated by 
Updated by