Ruby » Ruby master

Agreed.
IMHO class << expr should be no different than the normal class Name, but currently various things are allowed in that context such as return, yield, etc.

Constant resolution also becomes somewhat dynamically-scoped with class << expr which is also a weird exception.
So longer term maybe it would be good to deprecate class << entirely and use singleton_class.class_exec do instead.

Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:

Agreed.
IMHO class << expr should be no different than the normal class Name, but currently various things are allowed in that context such as return, yield, etc.

Constant resolution also becomes somewhat dynamically-scoped with class << expr which is also a weird exception.
So longer term maybe it would be good to deprecate class << entirely and use singleton_class.class_exec do instead.

or make it syntax sugre of singleton_class.class_exec do?
Both are easy to explain the rule. Now, it is somewhat unclear.

Similar strange example (off-topic):

1.times{
  class C
    break
    def undefined_method; end
  end
  p :unrechable
}
p [:ok, C.instance_methods(false)] #=> [:ok, []]

We can break from class syntax.
I hope nobody use it :(

ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote:

or make it syntax sugre of singleton_class.class_exec do?

I think that would be confusing as class (like module and def) is a keyword which normally adds a new lexical scope and does not capture the parent local variables.

ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote:

We can break from class syntax.
I hope nobody use it :(

At least TruffleRuby doesn't implement it, and we had no bug report about this, so hopefully not used.
Agreed it should be deprecated/removed as it's confusing at best.

Another option would be to make everything use lexical scope, if the strangeness is indeed because locals are inaccessible inside class << self.
So imagine the following printing 1 2 3.

foo = 1
class A
  bar = 2
  def hi
    baz = 3
    class << self
      p foo, bar, baz
    end
  end
end
A.new.hi

Is it less strange if everything used the same scoping rule?

Agreed to prohibit. Disagree to change the scoping rule (@alanwu (Alan Wu)).

Matz.

Matz, Thank you for confirmation.

I add a warning (without -w) like that:

def foo
  class << Object.new
    yield
  end
end

foo{ p :ok } #=> :ok

test.rb: warning: `yield' in class syntax will not be supported from Ruby 3.0. [Feature #15575]

English correction is wlecome :)