From: "NARUSE, Yui" Date: 2010-09-08T13:07:22+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:32122] Re: Ruby 2.0 Wiki/Wish-list? 2010/9/8 Joshua Ballanco : > On Sep 7, 2010, at 5:21 PM, NARUSE, Yui wrote: > >> 2010/9/8 Joshua Ballanco : >>> I've been itching to start discussing/debating/learning about features for Ruby 2.0 for a while now. >>> Some of the recent threads on ruby-core have just reemphasized the point. So, I was curious >>> what the process for 2.0 might be? I notice that there is not an entry on Redmine for 2.0 yet. >>> Will there eventually be a wiki? What is the preferred method for new feature suggestions? >>> Should we open tickets? Create a wiki page? Start a thread on the mailing list? All of the above? >> >> What is Ruby 2.0 is still ambiguous. >> I think it is depend on compatibility; if some feature is incompatible with 1.9, >> the new version which include them will be 2.0. > > So, for example, a few things I've wanted for a long time: > > -- "def" returns a lambda instead of nil usa also pointed this: the retrun value of "def". http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3753 He initially wanted that the return value should be a Method object, but he comes to think returning a Method object is too heavy for VM. So he requests symbol now. > -- adding parens "()" to a lambda has the effect of calling it (i.e. my_lambda.() --> my_lambda() ) > -- true namespacing (i.e. adding a layer to const lookup without adding a class/metaclass) > -- named parameters These are so long discussed problem. If someone suggest a good spec, it may accept. > -- full access to subclass from metaclasses (i.e. allow prototype-style inheritance) I don't know about this. > While these aren't necessarily incompatible (well, except maybe the parens for lambda), they are language-level changes. I imagine they should be considered carefully and deliberately and not necessarily in the context of a point update. I hadn't ever really made any fuss about these issues because I felt that they would be more appropriately discussed in the scope of Ruby 2.0, and I still believe that. Also, I'm willing to be patient (no need to get into a war of words now), I'd just like know how/when it would be best to raise these issues for consideration. These are also disscussed as a ticket. It's the official way. -- NARUSE, Yui naruse@airemix.jp