Just noticed that on the latest `master` subclasses `#inspect` didn't change (unlike what @matz suggests here: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21389#note-3): ```ruby class MySet < Set end p Set[1, 2, 3] #=> Set[1, 2, 3] p My...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
This works: ```ruby proc { |x| binding.eval('x') }.call(1) #=> 1 ``` This doesn't (neither with numbered parameters, nor with `it`): ```ruby proc { _1; binding.eval('_1') }.call(1) # undefined local variable or method '_1' for ...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
> I feel Unix command names are too short for usual programs. At the same time: * they are known at least to most of the console-using programmers, so this is a "dictionary" many of us familiar with * FileUtils have a practice of al...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
On the freshest `master`: ```ruby [1].each {_1; p binding.local_variable_defined?(:_1) } #=> true ``` It is inconsistent with changes in `#local_variables`/`#local_variable_get`/`#local_variable_set`. And inconsistent with handl...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
I am thinking in this direction: it is not unseen for standard libraries, when required, to add methods to core objects: ```ruby {a: 1}.to_json # NoMethodError require 'json' {a: 1}.to_json #=> {"a": 1} Time.parse('12:20') # NoM...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
1\. Currently, `Ruby::Box` provides an `#inspect` method, and its output is reasonably short yet mysterious: ```ruby Ruby::Box.new #=> #<Namespace:3,user,optional> ``` First, it uses old `Namespace` name instead of `Ruby::Box`. Next...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
I am not sure whether all the problems have the same nature, but putting them together for now. **1. Enabling box breaks `gem`+`require`** Minimal reproducible example: `test.rb`: ```ruby gem 'faraday', '= 2.14.0' require '...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
NB: Tentatively reopening this ticket, as it was autoclosed by the referring commit, but the ticket's scope is not only about the inclusion of `Ruby::Box` in the RDoc output.zverok (Victor Shepelev)
A quick couple of questions in the light of upcoming Ruby 4.0 release and `Ruby::Box` being available there (even if as an experimental feature): 1. Should the documentation of the class be available as RDoc? I mean, as standard class...zverok (Victor Shepelev)
zverok (Victor Shepelev)06:31 PM Ruby Feature #21389 (Open): Simplify Set#inspect output