Misc #19925
closed
Added by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 10 months ago.
Updated 9 months ago.
Description
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.
Related issues
1 (1 open — 0 closed)
- [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?
- [Feature #18980] Re-reconsider numbered parameters:
it
as a default block parameter
- [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.
- [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?
- [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?
(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.
- [Feature #19985] Support
Pathname
for require
- [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.
- [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?
- [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?
- Status changed from Open to Closed
Also available in: Atom
PDF
Like0
Like0Like1Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0