[ruby-core:97527] [Ruby master Bug#12671] Hash#to_proc result is not a lambda, but enforces arity

[ruby-core:97527] [Ruby master Bug#12671] Hash#to_proc result is not a lambda, but enforces arity

[mame]

Issue #12671 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).


This ticket was briefly discussed at today's dev meeting, and matz said that the result of Hash#to_proc should be a lambda.

----------------------------------------
Bug #12671: Hash#to_proc result is not a lambda, but enforces arity
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12671#change-84683

* Author: headius (Charles Nutter)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* ruby -v: ruby 2.3.0p0 (2015-12-25 revision 53290) [x86_64-darwin14]
* Backport: 2.1: UNKNOWN, 2.2: UNKNOWN, 2.3: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
```
 $ ruby23 -e 'pr = {foo:1}.to_proc; puts pr.lambda?; pr.call rescue puts $!; pr.call(1, 2) rescue puts $!'
false
wrong number of arguments (given 0, expected 1)
wrong number of arguments (given 2, expected 1)
```

I believe it should be marked as a lambda, since it enforces arity.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

[ruby-core:99361] [Ruby master Bug#12671] Hash#to_proc result is not a lambda, but enforces arity

[marcandre-ruby-core]

Issue #12671 has been updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune).

Status changed from Closed to Open

Is there a reason why the arity was not fixed to `1` (instead of `-1`)?

----------------------------------------
Bug #12671: Hash#to_proc result is not a lambda, but enforces arity
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12671#change-86761

* Author: headius (Charles Nutter)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* ruby -v: ruby 2.3.0p0 (2015-12-25 revision 53290) [x86_64-darwin14]
* Backport: 2.1: UNKNOWN, 2.2: UNKNOWN, 2.3: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
```
 $ ruby23 -e 'pr = {foo:1}.to_proc; puts pr.lambda?; pr.call rescue puts $!; pr.call(1, 2) rescue puts $!'
false
wrong number of arguments (given 0, expected 1)
wrong number of arguments (given 2, expected 1)
```

I believe it should be marked as a lambda, since it enforces arity.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

[ruby-core:99368] [Ruby master Bug#12671] Hash#to_proc result is not a lambda, but enforces arity

[eregontp]

Issue #12671 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).


Looking at the commit, should Hash#to_proc use `rb_func_lambda_new()` instead of `rb_func_proc_new()`? (and then `rb_func_proc_new` is unused)
Also it seems confusing that `rb_func_proc_new()` creates a lambda, so using `rb_func_lambda_new()` seems better here.

----------------------------------------
Bug #12671: Hash#to_proc result is not a lambda, but enforces arity
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12671#change-86771

* Author: headius (Charles Nutter)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* ruby -v: ruby 2.3.0p0 (2015-12-25 revision 53290) [x86_64-darwin14]
* Backport: 2.1: UNKNOWN, 2.2: UNKNOWN, 2.3: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
```
 $ ruby23 -e 'pr = {foo:1}.to_proc; puts pr.lambda?; pr.call rescue puts $!; pr.call(1, 2) rescue puts $!'
false
wrong number of arguments (given 0, expected 1)
wrong number of arguments (given 2, expected 1)
```

I believe it should be marked as a lambda, since it enforces arity.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

[ruby-core:99369] [Ruby master Bug#12671] Hash#to_proc result is not a lambda, but enforces arity

[eregontp]

Issue #12671 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).


Proposed fix (simple as it gets): https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/3370

----------------------------------------
Bug #12671: Hash#to_proc result is not a lambda, but enforces arity
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12671#change-86772

* Author: headius (Charles Nutter)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* ruby -v: ruby 2.3.0p0 (2015-12-25 revision 53290) [x86_64-darwin14]
* Backport: 2.1: UNKNOWN, 2.2: UNKNOWN, 2.3: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
```
 $ ruby23 -e 'pr = {foo:1}.to_proc; puts pr.lambda?; pr.call rescue puts $!; pr.call(1, 2) rescue puts $!'
false
wrong number of arguments (given 0, expected 1)
wrong number of arguments (given 2, expected 1)
```

I believe it should be marked as a lambda, since it enforces arity.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/