Applied in changeset commit:git|9ce0df671980d669cbab8afc48124c7453897533. ---------- Make ISeq binaries portable * Make `__FILE__` a frozen core method that return the iseq path. * Make `load_from_binary` accept `file, path` like compi...byroot (Jean Boussier)
Applied in changeset commit:git|9ce0df671980d669cbab8afc48124c7453897533. ---------- Make ISeq binaries portable * Make `__FILE__` a frozen core method that return the iseq path. * Make `load_from_binary` accept `file, path` like compi...byroot (Jean Boussier)
* Make `__FILE__` a frozen core method that return the iseq path. * Make `load_from_binary` accept `file, path` like compile. [Feature #17593] [Feature #22395]byroot (Jean Boussier)
> Were completely different names considered, such as len? Also the natural type to go for would be `size_t`, so `rb_size_t` would make more sense than `rb_long_t`? But then there's the sign difference...byroot (Jean Boussier)
> If that sounds acceptable, I can put this version up as a second PR so the two can be compared. Yes please do. I think your proposal is fine, but it's always easier to reason about it with the code.byroot (Jean Boussier)
> it would be a problem if they were only joined when a fork happens. In my mind we're regularly do non blocking join, e.g. whenever we start a new name resolution, or finish one. So it would be self cleaning.byroot (Jean Boussier)
> rework the PR that way if you'd prefer it. I personally prefer that option, as adding code that depends on things marked as deprecated scares me a bit. But if @mame feels strongly otherwise I'm ok with it.byroot (Jean Boussier)
> What do you think? I'm trying to figure out whether this is even public API, as in, will this break under us in a couple years. ```c if (_res.nscount > 0) { res_nclose(&_res); _res.nscount = 0; // to make t...byroot (Jean Boussier)
Fix: https://github.com/ruby/json/issues/1038 Directly lift https://github.com/dryruby/json-canonicalization At least for now, implementing most of the logic in Ruby make it shareable between the 3 generator implementations, largely re...byroot (Jean Boussier)
> What do you think? I think I'd be worth trying for a preview (there was no 4.1.0preview this year?) as to see what the blast radius really is. Other than that, I wonder if one avenue could be to have this be a build flag first, a...byroot (Jean Boussier)