From: merch-redmine@... Date: 2020-07-21T00:50:39+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:99244] [Ruby master Bug#17038] On master, ancestry edits can lead to duplicates in Module#ancestors Issue #17038 has been updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans). I believe it's always been possible to have duplicates in ancestors, even before this change: ```ruby class A end class B < A end module C end B.include C A.include C B.ancestors # => [B, C, A, C, Object, Kernel, BasicObject] ``` Making include/prepend affect iclasses certainly makes duplicates in ancestors more likely, though. I don't think this is a bug. If you think it is a bug, can you describe what you consider the correct behavior to be? ---------------------------------------- Bug #17038: On master, ancestry edits can lead to duplicates in Module#ancestors https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17038#change-86628 * Author: alanwu (Alan Wu) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 2.8.0dev (2020-07-20T06:39:31Z master 935d0b3d05) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN, 2.7: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Running the following [script](https://wandbox.org/permlink/0f48S2QhvEO1cOBF) on master(935d0b3d05dfc8b30bba505792129bf0e33ebe3b), `A` appears three times in the lookup chain of `C` and `A#foo` is called multiple times with `super`. ```ruby module A def foo [:a] + super end end module B def foo [:b] + super end end class Object def foo [:object] end end module C def foo [:c] + super end end class D prepend A include C include B def foo [:d] + super end end B.include A C.include A p D.ancestors p D.new.foo p RUBY_REVISION __END__ [A, D, B, A, C, A, Object, Kernel, BasicObject] [:a, :d, :b, :a, :c, :a, :object] "935d0b3d05dfc8b30bba505792129bf0e33ebe3b" ``` This change was introduced in #9573. Is this behavior intentional? In my opinion it's a bit odd since it's not possible to have duplicates in the lookup chain on released versions. Allowing duplicates can surprise peopole that are used to not having duplicates and lead to bugs. If `A#foo` had side effects, for example, calling it multiple times could be undesirable. Also, logically it doesn't make sense to have a module be the ancestor of itself. Comparison operators make less sense with this new setup. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: