Misc #19925: DevMeeting-2023-11-07

• Status: Closed
• Assignee: -

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

The next dev meeting

Date: 2023/11/07 13:00-17:00 (JST)
Log: TBD

• 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 2023/11/04. 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.

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

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

[tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)]

• [Feature #18915] Change documentation for NotImplementedError or introduce new exception
  • People use NotImplementedError for abstract classes, but documentation says it's only for "a feature is not implemented on the current platform"
  • Should we change documentation to reflect actual usage?
  • Introduce a new exception for this purpose?

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

• [Feature #18980] Re-reconsider numbered parameters: it as a default block parameter
  • At RubyKaigi 2022, many attendees preferred it over _1, Matz did not reject it unlike _ or @, and he said he shall think about it again. Could you think about it again now?
  • It's been a year since the Kaigi. We've had enough time discussing it on the ticket. Is there anything that needs more discussions?

[zverok (Victor Shepelev)]

• [Feature #19324] Enumerator.product => Enumerable#product
  • The method introduced is inconsistent with Array#product being an instance method, and in general is defined unlike any similar Enumerable or Array methods;
  • It also has a one-letter difference from a useful method Enumerator.produce, that does a very different thing;
  • It was just introduced in the last version, so I believe the "window of opportunity" to move the method (without breaking much code) is not closed yet.

[hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)]

• [Bug #19969] Regression of memory usage with Ruby 3.1
  • Revert or enable rehash with only large Hash?
• www.ruby-lang.org needs a Privacy Policy page
  • https://www.php.net/privacy.php is good example. Should we put like it to www.ruby-lang.org?

[kyanagi (Kouhei Yanagita)]

• [Feature #18551] Make Range#reverse_each to raise an exception if endless (kyanagi)
  • I mentioned this issue for the last meeting, but it seems that it was missed.
  • Since [Feature #18515] has been merged, could you please make a decision on this issue?

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

• [Bug #19983] Nested * seems incorrect (eregon)
  • def m(*); ->(*) { p(*) }; end is not SyntaxError but uses the "wrong" *.
  • Could we make that SyntaxError, or could we support anonymous rest in blocks?

[zverok (Victor Shepelev)]

(Alternative to the above)

• [Feature #19370] Anonymous parameters for blocks?
  • I argue that we should just allow that for consistency; the resulting behavior would be not more confusing than the regular variable shadowing.

[hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)]

• [Feature #19985] Support Pathname for require
  • Should we support that?

[ufuk (Ufuk Kayserilioglu)]

• [Feature #19979] Allow methods to declare that they don't accept a block via &nil (ufuk)
  • Can we reconsider the introduction of &nil as a signal to declare that a method does not accept a block?
  • This would make many public APIs safer to use and would enable better static analysis than alternative approaches.

[sinsoku (Takumi Shotoku)]

• [Feature #14602] Version of dig that raises error if a key is not present (sinsoku)
  • The last comment (one before mine) was a year ago, so I think all the method name candidates have come up.
  • Would you like to choose one from these candidates?

[mdalessio (Mike Dalessio)]

• [Misc #19980] Is the Ruby 3.3 ABI frozen? (flavorjones)
  • Is the Ruby 3.3 ABI frozen now? If a native gem is built against Ruby 3.3.0_preview2, is there any reason to believe that it wouldn't work with Ruby 3.3 final when it is released?
  • In the past, precompiled native gems (nokogiri, sqlite3, etc.) released support for a new version of Ruby weeks after Ruby's release, slowing adoption of Ruby in some cases.
  • I would like to cut a release of rake-compiler-dock as soon as possible to allow gem maintainers to release native gems that support Ruby 3.3 ahead of 3.3.0 final release. When can I do this safely?

[k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun)]

• Status changed from Open to Closed