From: "zverok (Victor Shepelev) via ruby-core" Date: 2023-01-31T07:52:38+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:112134] [Ruby master Bug#19392] Endless method vs and/or Issue #19392 has been updated by zverok (Victor Shepelev). Status changed from Rejected to Open @nobu Sorry, can we talk about it a bit more?.. I am not an expert in parser's internals, so I _can_ believe that it is 100% impossible to solve, but is it?.. From developer's experience point of view: * There is a high possibility of using `def foo = statement or statement`, it is quite regularly used idiom for shortcutting and validations; * Depending on the second part of such expression, the wrong behavior might be noticed very late; * There are no useful consequences (that I can think of) for breaking the one-line method body on `and`/`or`, so it can't be justified by "it doesn't work this way, because it actually does this interesting thing!" Therefore it definitely **perceives like a bug** and a harmless one, not just "useless trivia" kind. Moreover: * One-line method definitions aren't any expressions. They introduce a new scope, for example, and having a scope suddenly ending mid-line on _operator_ (and not at least on `;`) is behavior that screams "bug", even if it can be explained in "it is internal precedence" terms: ```ruby def test = x = 5 and puts x # in `
': undefined local variable or method `x' for main:Object (NameError) ``` * Again, I am not a Ruby internal expert (though if there is no other choice, I can take on studying this problem), but I have a hunch that it isn't impossible to introduce a simple rule "endless method's definition ends on `;` or `\n`, and nothing else". That's the user expectation, anyway. ---------------------------------------- Bug #19392: Endless method vs and/or https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19392#change-101571 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: DONTNEED, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- [Discovered](https://twitter.com/lucianghinda/status/1617783952353406977) by Lucian Ghinda: ```ruby def test = puts("foo") and puts("bar") # prints "bar" immediately test # prints "foo" ``` It seems that it is a parser error, right?.. ```ruby RubyVM::AbstractSyntaxTree.parse('def test = puts("foo") and puts("bar")') # => # (SCOPE@1:0-1:38 # tbl: [] # args: nil # body: # (AND@1:0-1:38 # (DEFN@1:0-1:22 # mid: :test # body: # (SCOPE@1:0-1:22 # tbl: [] # args: # (ARGS@1:0-1:8 pre_num: 0 pre_init: nil opt: nil first_post: nil post_num: 0 post_init: nil rest: nil kw: nil kwrest: nil block: nil) # body: (FCALL@1:11-1:22 :puts (LIST@1:16-1:21 (STR@1:16-1:21 "foo") nil)))) # (FCALL@1:27-1:38 :puts (LIST@1:32-1:37 (STR@1:32-1:37 "bar") nil)))) ``` E.g. it is parsed as ```ruby (def test = puts("foo")) and (puts("bar")) ``` ...which is hardly intentional or have any practical use. The rightly parsed code in this case _can_ have practical use, like ```ruby def write(data) = File.write(@filename, data) == data.size or raise "Something went wrong" ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ ______________________________________________ ruby-core mailing list -- ruby-core@ml.ruby-lang.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-core-leave@ml.ruby-lang.org ruby-core info -- https://ml.ruby-lang.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/ruby-core.ml.ruby-lang.org/