Implement retroactive module_function singleton copies#800
Closed
slbug wants to merge 2 commits into
Closed
Conversation
Author
|
I have signed the CLA! |
slbug
force-pushed
the
retroactive_module_function
branch
3 times, most recently
from
May 14, 2026 05:27
4077397 to
d73e9db
Compare
slbug
force-pushed
the
retroactive_module_function
branch
from
May 15, 2026 20:21
d73e9db to
8831e99
Compare
Contributor
|
Thank you for taking the time to work on this. After reviewing it, we’ve decided to take a different approach to this issue, so we’ll close this contribution. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Handles cursed
module_function :fooruntime behavior.Ruby doesn’t just mark
fooprivate — it snapshots the current method entry, installs a private instance copy, and exposes a public singleton copy. Also works whenfoocomes from an included module, because of course it does.This wires that up in resolution, tracks the generated copies so incremental reindexing can tear them down/rebuild them when the source method, visibility call, or ancestor chain changes, and covers the
attr_*edge cases too.