Issue #14385 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).


> I see back-ticks are used improperly all the time.
> For example, I would support adding warnings and suggestions to
> use system() instead of being used in a void context. Dangerous
> interpolation would be one use case for keeping taint, even.

I am not sure if this is a good approach. What if someone really
just prefers the shorter `` rather than system()? I mean, it is not
a problem for me since I use `` only in context of assigning it to
a variable, and then when I inspect at the variable. For example,
today, I was parsing the result of exiftools for a .pdf file
in ruby.

It's always a trade off how chatty ruby should be with its warnings,
especially when you can not or do not want to make certain suggested
changes. For example, what rubocop tells me by default about my 
ruby code I usually do not agree with at all. :-)

----------------------------------------
Feature #14385: Deprecate back-tick for Ruby 3.
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14385#change-70650

* Author: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
From https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/DevelopersMeeting20171212Japan#From-attendees

Matz hopes to deprecate backtick syntax(``) for Ruby 3. We should warn about it at Ruby 2.6 (or 2.7?)

We need to consider them.

* warning message
* warning level
* ?



-- 
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>