Issue #17159 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).


marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) wrote in #note-8:
> How about:
> 
> ```ruby
> define_method(:name, make_shareable: true) { ... }
> # equivalent to:
> define_method(:name, &Ractor.make_shareable(Proc.new{...}))`
> ```

Matz, how about this proposal?


----------------------------------------
Bug #17159: extend `define_method` for Ractor
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17159#change-88284

* Author: ko1 (Koichi Sasada)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Backport: 2.5: DONTNEED, 2.6: DONTNEED, 2.7: DONTNEED
----------------------------------------
Ractor prohibits use of non-isolated `Proc`s.

Non-isolated example is here:

```ruby
s = "foo"
pr = Proc.new{ p s }
```

This Proc `pr` can not be shared among ractors because outer variable `s` can contain an unshareable object. Also outer binding is a mutable object. Sharing it can lead race conditions.

Because of these reasons, `define_method` is also a problem on a multi-Ractor program.
(current implementation allows it just because check is not implemented, and it leads BUG).


I think there are several patterns when `define_method` is needed.

(1) To choose method names on-the-fly

```ruby
name = ...
define_method(name){ nil }
```

(2) To embed variables to the code

```ruby
10.times{|i|
  define_method("foo#{i}"){ i }
}
```

(3) To use global state by local variables

```ruby
cnt = 0
define_method("inc"){ cnt += 1 }
```

(4) Others I can't imagine

----

(1) is easy. We can allow `define_method(name, &Proc{nil}.isolate)`.

(3) can never be OK. It introduces data races/race conditions. For this purpose one need to use shared hash.

```ruby
STATE = SharedHash.new(cnt: 0)
define_method("inc"){ STATE.transaction{ STATE[:cnt] += 1 }}
```

I think there are many (2) patterns that should be saved.
To help (2) pattern, the easiest way is to use `eval`.

```ruby
10.times{|i|
  eval("def foo#{i} #{i}; end")
}
```

However, `eval` has several issues (it has huge freedom to explode the program, editor's syntax highlighting and so on).

Another approach is to embed the current value to the code, like this:

```ruby
i = 0
define_method("foo", ractorise: true){ i }
#=> equivalent to:
#   define_method("foo"){ 0 }
# so that if outer scope's i changed, not affected.
i = 1
foo #=> 0

s = ""
define_method("bar", ractorise: true){ s }
#=> equivalent to:
#   define_method("bar"){ "" }
# so that if outer scope's s or s's value, it doesn't affect
s << "x"
bar #=> ""
```

However, it is very differenct from current Proc semantics.

Another idea is to specify embedding value like this:

```ruby
i = 0
define_method("foo", i: i){ i }
#=> equivalent to:
#   define_method("foo"){ 0 }
# so that if outer scope's i changed, not affected.
i = 1
foo #=> 0

s = ""
define_method("bar", s: s){ s }
#=> equivalent to:
#   define_method("bar"){ "" }
# so that if outer scope's s or s's value, it doesn't affect
s << "x"
bar #=> ""
```

`i: i` and `s: s` are redundant. However, if there are no outer variable `i` or `s`, the `i` and `s` in blocks are compiled to `send(:i)` or `send(:s)`. But I agree these method invocation should be replaced is another idea.


Thoughts?

Thanks,
Koichi



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

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>