Issue #18035 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams).


Regarding method chains, one thing that's always bothered me a bit is this:

```
def foo(*arguments)
	pp object_id: arguments.object_id, frozen: arguments.frozen?
end

arguments = [1, 2, 3].freeze
pp object_id: arguments.object_id, frozen: arguments.frozen?

foo(arguments)
```

I know it's hard to implement this and also retain compatibility, but I feel like the vast majority of allocations done by this style of code are almost always unneeded.

----------------------------------------
Bug #18035: Introduce general model/semantic for immutable by default.
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18035#change-92845

* Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Backport: 2.6: UNKNOWN, 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
It would be good to establish some rules around mutability, immutability, frozen, and deep frozen in Ruby.

I see time and time again, incorrect assumptions about how this works in production code. Constants that aren't really constant, people using `#freeze` incorrectly, etc.

I don't have any particular preference but:

- We should establish consistent patterns where possible, e.g.
  - Objects created by `new` are mutable.
  - Objects created by literal are immutable.

We have problems with how `freeze` works on composite data types, e.g. `Hash#freeze` does not impact children keys/values, same for Array. Do we need to introduce `freeze(true)` or `#deep_freeze` or some other method?

Because of this, frozen does not necessarily correspond to immutable. This is an issue which causes real world problems.

I als propose to codify this where possible, in terms of "this class of object is immutable" should be enforced by the language/runtime, e.g.


```ruby
module Immutable
  def new(...)
    super.freeze
  end
end

class MyImmutableObject
  extend Immutable

  def initialize(x)
    @x = x
  end
  
  def freeze
    return self if frozen?
    
    @x.freeze
    
    super
  end
end

o = MyImmutableObject.new([1, 2, 3])
puts o.frozen?
```

Finally, this area has an impact to thread and fiber safe programming, so it is becoming more relevant and I believe that the current approach which is rather adhoc is insufficient.

I know that it's non-trivial to retrofit existing code, but maybe it can be done via magic comment, etc, which we already did for frozen string literals.



-- 
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>