[#99868] [Ruby master Bug#17144] Tempfile.open { ... } does not unlink the file — eregontp@...
Issue #17144 has been reported by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
15 messages
2020/09/03
[ruby-core:99814] [Ruby master Feature#15752] A dedicated module for experimental features
From:
matz@...
Date:
2020-09-01 08:06:09 UTC
List:
ruby-core #99814
Issue #15752 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto). Status changed from Open to Closed As far as I understand, you want a place to separate features that do not only belong to `CRuby`, right? But for example, we started `RubyVM::AbstractSyntaxTree` as a `CRuby` specific feature, it was natural for us to place it under `RubyVM`. So it may be uncertain that the feature is implementation-specific or not from the start. So we have to discuss for each feature that can be shared among implementations (like `RubyVM::AbstractSyntaxTree`). We might give it a new name. In my opinion, we don't need a place like `ExperimentalFeature`, because it is not what we really need. Matz. ---------------------------------------- Feature #15752: A dedicated module for experimental features https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15752#change-87336 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Closed * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I believe we should introduce a module for experimental features portable across Ruby implementations. An example of such a portable experimental feature is `RubyVM.resolve_feature_path`. This feature has nothing MRI specific in it, it is a part of basic `require` functionality. In the future, I would think more experimental features will be introduced, and I think `RubyVM` is not a good place for it. Currently, `RubyVM` is sometimes used for experimental features, but I believe `RubyVM` should be defined only on MRI and contain only MRI-specific features. This means it is *impossible* for other implementations such as JRuby and TruffleRuby to define `resolve_feature_path` (even though it's trivial and might be useful for some users), and keeping `RubyVM` not defined for clearly marking MRI specific features are not available. This is a problem that will only gets worse as portable experimental features are added to `RubyVM`. Here is one example of adding an experimental feature but unfortunately there is no common place between Ruby implementations to add it: https://github.com/jruby/jruby/issues/5206 If other implementations defined `RubyVM`, then only parts of it would be portable and other parts would be MRI specific, which would be very confusing to both users and Ruby implementers. Also, `RubyVM` doesn't really indicate by its name that it contains experimental features. So I propose the obvious name `ExperimentalFeatures`. I think such a long name is unlikely to clash with existing Object constants, is very clear, and marks that any usage of it is by definition using not stable APIs that might be removed or changed. In combination with #15743, this would mean we can very clearly see what kind of feature it is due to explicit naming: * `ExperimentalFeatures.resolve_feature_path` is a portable experimental feature, which can be supported on other Ruby implementations too. * `CRuby::InstructionSequence` is a CRuby/MRI-specific feature, which will only be supported on MRI. OTOH, the `RubyVM` name doesn't indicate this important difference, and doesn't even indicate the features under it might experimental or not portable. My main motivation here, is allowing other Ruby implementations to support some of these portable experimental features. There is no reason for only MRI to be able to support code using portable experimental features. cc @mame @headius -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>