From: mame@... Date: 2019-06-06T09:59:04+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:93007] [Ruby trunk Feature#15903] Move RubyVM.resolve_feature_path to Kernel.resolve_feature_path Issue #15903 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote: > mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote: > > However, we can't be too careful to add anything to `Kernel` nowadays. > > I propose only as a class method, not an instance method Oh sorry I missed the point. Fair enough. I'll ask matz's opinion at the next meeting. > > At least, I don't want to do that until we receive an actual request to make the method available in production. > > We very rarely receive this, e.g., even for RubyVM::InstructionSequence which is now used in production (bootsnap). > I think it is not a good criteria, it's just too easy to use `RubyVM` in user code. Let's try to remove it and see how many people are killed. (Joke) ---------------------------------------- Feature #15903: Move RubyVM.resolve_feature_path to Kernel.resolve_feature_path https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15903#change-78383 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) * Target version: 2.7 ---------------------------------------- RubyVM contains mostly MRI-specific features but `resolve_feature_path` is clearly not MRI-specific. So I propose to move it as a class method of `Kernel`. I think this makes sense given the related `load` and `require` are defined in `Kernel` too. Moreover, moving this method outside `RubyVM` is *necessary* for other Ruby implementations to implement it, and keep the clean separation that `RubyVM` is only defined on MRI (see #15752). So, can I move `RubyVM.resolve_feature_path` to `Kernel.resolve_feature_path`? Do we need to keep the method on RubyVM (and deprecate it), or can we just remove it since anyway API under RubyVM is not stable? cc @mame -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: