From: "jemmai (Jemma Issroff)" <noreply@...>
Date: 2021-12-02T14:36:48+00:00
Subject: [ruby-core:106394] [Ruby master Bug#18377] Integer#times has different behavior depending on the size of the integer

Issue #18377 has been updated by jemmai (Jemma Issroff).


Thanks for the quick response Jeremy! I'm very new to opening issues on here and making fixes on Ruby. Quick question on process though - I had basically that PR written already. Should I have linked it above? 

I had thought (maybe incorrectly) to wait until someone responded agreeing with the proposal to link the code change too.

----------------------------------------
Bug #18377: Integer#times has different behavior depending on the size of the integer
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18377#change-95032

* Author: jemmai (Jemma Issroff)
* Status: Closed
* Priority: Normal
* ruby -v: 3.0.2
* Backport: 2.6: UNKNOWN, 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
If we redefine `+` or `>`, `Integer#times` adheres to this redefinition for big integers but not for small integers.

Reproduction script to run on Ruby 3.0.2:

```
ARGV.first.to_i.times do
  Integer.undef_method(:+)
  Integer.define_method(:+) do |_other|
    puts "my custom add"
    exit
  end
end
```

Using `1` as an argument has no printed output:

```
$ ruby test_add.rb 1
```

whereas using `2 ** 64` (`18446744073709551615`) prints "my custom add":

```
$ ruby test_add.rb 18446744073709551615
my custom add
```

We see the same difference when we override behavior of `<`:

```
ARGV.first.to_i.times do
  Integer.undef_method(:<)
  Integer.define_method(:<) do |_other|
    puts "my custom less than"
    exit
  end
end
```
```
$ ruby test_less_than.rb 1
```
```
$ ruby test_less_than.rb 18446744073709551615
my custom less than
```

Note that the boxed number which changes the `Integer#times` behavior will vary on different machines.

**Options**

There are three potential paths forward here:
1. *Change behavior for small integers to match behavior for big integer.*
This will have a performance cost. It���s uncommon to redefine `+` or `<` on Integers. For this reason, I would argue that correctness on an obscure edge case (especially one that has been unreported since almost the beginning of the language) is less important than performance on the default case.

2. *Change behavior for big integers to match behavior for small integers.* 
This will mean that behavior is incorrect on both big integers and small integers, but at least it is consistent. Right now it is arbitrary and hard to explain why the behavior would change based on the integer itself. If we keep this behavior consistent for all integers, we can document this clearly in a way that is easy to understand.

3. *Do nothing.* 
This bug has existed for many years unreported. The last option is to not pursue any code changes, but potentially document this behavior.

**Proposal**

I propose we pursue option 2 and make the behavior consistent and documented. As I said, it���s unlikely that developers override integer behavior of `+`, and especially unlikely to do this within an `Integer#times` block. As long as this is documented and consistent, it seems okay to me to have this known incorrectness to save the performance cost of accommodating different definitions of `+`.




-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>