Issue #15903 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).


(I'm an author of `RubyVM.resolve_feature_path`.)

Sorry but I'm not so positive.  From perspective of module design, I agree that `Kernel` module looks the best place to add the method.  However, we can't be too careful to add anything to `Kernel` nowadays.  At least, I don't want to do that until we receive an actual request to make the method available in production.  Currently, I have no reason to move it to `Kernel`, except module design consistency.

This is just my opinion.  It is all right if matz accepted this.

----------------------------------------
Feature #15903: Move RubyVM.resolve_feature_path to Kernel.resolve_feature_path
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15903#change-78369

* Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Eregon (Benoit Daloze)
* Target version: 2.7
----------------------------------------
RubyVM contains mostly MRI-specific features but `resolve_feature_path` is clearly not MRI-specific.

So I propose to move it as a class method of `Kernel`.
I think this makes sense given the related `load` and `require` are defined in `Kernel` too.

Moreover, moving this method outside `RubyVM` is *necessary* for other Ruby implementations to implement it, and keep the clean separation that `RubyVM` is only defined on MRI (see #15752).

So, can I move `RubyVM.resolve_feature_path` to `Kernel.resolve_feature_path`?

Do we need to keep the method on RubyVM (and deprecate it), or can we just remove it since anyway API under RubyVM is not stable?

cc @mame



-- 
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>