From: bughit.github@... Date: 2019-09-09T17:16:04+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:94868] [Ruby master Bug#12984] `rescue *[]` should be equivalent to `rescue` as `method_call(*[])` is equivalent to `method_call` Issue #12984 has been updated by bughit (bug hit). > I think it's is less surprising than rescue *no_classes to "magically" rescue StandardError It is the current behavior that's magical. If you try to deduce what `rescue *[]` means from the primitives, it goes like this: - `*[]` means a void (non-existent) list - therefore `rescue *[]` means `rescue`. It can't mean `rescue()` (like `super()`) because `rescue()` does not exist Anything but the above is special-casing, i.e. magic ---------------------------------------- Bug #12984: `rescue *[]` should be equivalent to `rescue` as `method_call(*[])` is equivalent to `method_call` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12984#change-81485 * Author: bughit (bug hit) * Status: Assigned * Priority: Normal * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) * Target version: * ruby -v: ruby 2.3.3p222 (2016-11-21 revision 56859) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.1: UNKNOWN, 2.2: UNKNOWN, 2.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Splatting an empty array to a construct that takes a list is supposed to be equivalent to specifying no list ```ruby def foo end foo *[] #works ``` So `rescue *[]` should be equivalent to `rescue` ```ruby begin raise 'error' #Uncaught exception rescue *[] puts 'caught' end ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: