Bug #20090
closedAnonymous arguments are now syntax errors in unambiguous cases
Description
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:
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:
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.
Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 10 months ago
- Status changed from Open to Closed
- Backport changed from 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN to 3.0: DONTNEED, 3.1: DONTNEED, 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: REQUIRED
Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 10 months ago
- Has duplicate Bug #20091: Anonymous block method parameters no longer usable within blocks with ruby 3.3 added
Updated by matheusrich (Matheus Richard) 10 months ago
@nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) should we expect a 3.3.1 release soon?
Updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE) 9 months ago
- Backport changed from 3.0: DONTNEED, 3.1: DONTNEED, 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: REQUIRED to 3.0: DONTNEED, 3.1: DONTNEED, 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: DONE
ruby_3_3 f8f0d342e48a38caac6d32b438c145bb581a51e6 merged revision(s) 3d19409637de1462b6790d2a92344bf0a10d8c52.
Updated by eliotp123 (Eliot Partridge) 9 months ago
@naruse (Yui NARUSE) Hi - I'm new around here. I was poking around this bug as it affects our codebase at work, and I think the wrong commit may have been flagged as the backport for this bug? Checking the Git tree, I don't see 596db9c1f486d6609a4e97d82c8c71b54609fb6f as having been backported to the ruby_3_3
branch. Just wanted to know if this was going to make it in for 3.3.1?
Updated by eliotp123 (Eliot Partridge) 8 months ago
@nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) I hate to bother you as well, but I just want to make sure someone sees this before Ruby 3.3.1 is cut.
Updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) 8 months ago
- 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 (Yui 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?
Updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE) 8 months ago
- Backport changed from 3.0: DONTNEED, 3.1: DONTNEED, 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: REQUIRED to 3.0: DONTNEED, 3.1: DONTNEED, 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: DONE
ruby_3_3 2a84aaf4a8c8d6d6bbb09416711922532b0033fe merged revision(s) 596db9c1f486d6609a4e97d82c8c71b54609fb6f.