[#107430] [Ruby master Feature#18566] Merge `io-wait` gem into core IO — "byroot (Jean Boussier)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18566 has been reported by byroot (Jean Boussier).

22 messages 2022/02/02

[#107434] [Ruby master Bug#18567] Depending on default gems when not needed considered harmful — "Eregon (Benoit Daloze)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18567 has been reported by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).

31 messages 2022/02/02

[#107443] [Ruby master Feature#18568] Explore lazy RubyGems boot to reduce need for --disable-gems — "headius (Charles Nutter)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18568 has been reported by headius (Charles Nutter).

13 messages 2022/02/02

[#107481] [Ruby master Feature#18571] Removed the bundled sources from release package after Ruby 3.2 — "hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18571 has been reported by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).

9 messages 2022/02/04

[#107490] [Ruby master Bug#18572] Performance regression when invoking refined methods — "palkan (Vladimir Dementyev)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18572 has been reported by palkan (Vladimir Dementyev).

12 messages 2022/02/05

[#107514] [Ruby master Feature#18576] Rename `ASCII-8BIT` encoding to `BINARY` — "byroot (Jean Boussier)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18576 has been reported by byroot (Jean Boussier).

47 messages 2022/02/08

[#107536] [Ruby master Feature#18579] Concatenation of ASCII-8BIT strings shouldn't behave differently depending on string contents — "tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18579 has been reported by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson).

11 messages 2022/02/09

[#107547] [Ruby master Bug#18580] Range#include? inconsistency for String ranges — "zverok (Victor Shepelev)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18580 has been reported by zverok (Victor Shepelev).

10 messages 2022/02/10

[#107603] [Ruby master Feature#18589] Finer-grained constant invalidation — "kddeisz (Kevin Newton)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18589 has been reported by kddeisz (Kevin Newton).

17 messages 2022/02/16

[#107624] [Ruby master Bug#18590] String#downcase and CAPITAL LETTER I WITH DOT ABOVE — "andrykonchin (Andrew Konchin)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18590 has been reported by andrykonchin (Andrew Konchin).

13 messages 2022/02/17

[#107651] [Ruby master Misc#18591] DevMeeting-2022-03-17 — "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18591 has been reported by mame (Yusuke Endoh).

11 messages 2022/02/18

[#107682] [Ruby master Feature#18595] Alias `String#-@` as `String#dedup` — "byroot (Jean Boussier)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18595 has been reported by byroot (Jean Boussier).

15 messages 2022/02/21

[#107699] [Ruby master Feature#18597] Strings need a named method like `dup` that doesn't duplicate if receiver is mutable — "danh337 (Dan H)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18597 has been reported by danh337 (Dan H).

18 messages 2022/02/21

[ruby-core:107527] [Ruby master Feature#18576] Rename `ASCII-8BIT` encoding to `BINARY`

From: "naruse (Yui NARUSE)" <noreply@...>
Date: 2022-02-09 09:51:43 UTC
List: ruby-core #107527
Issue #18576 has been updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE).


The name `ASCII-8BIT` expresses how we deeply considered about what "binary" is. Ruby 1.9's encoding system is serial invents. Ruby invented some ideas: ASCII COMPATIBLE and ASCII-8BIT.

> Two things particularly confusing about the name ASCII-8BIT:
>
> * It's completely unclear it might mean binary data or unknown encoding
> * ISO-8859-* and many other encodings are 8-bit ascii-compatible encodings. Yet ASCII-8BIT which name seems to imply something close is nothing like that (the 8th bit is undefined, uninterpreted but valid).

Your two questions raises very good points. The answer for them is tightly coupled with the name `ASCII-8BIT`.

> * It's completely unclear it might mean binary data or unknown encoding

I want to ask you that how often you can actually distinguish them. Ruby's assumption is that developers cannot distinguish them in normal use cases. If so, Ruby may not provide two objects. If Ruby provide only one object for them, developers don't need clarify it.

> ISO-8859-* and many other encodings are 8-bit ascii-compatible encodings. Yet ASCII-8BIT which name seems to imply something close is nothing like that (the 8th bit is undefined, uninterpreted but valid).

This is very good question. Ruby's answer is "yes, ASCII-8BIT is similar to ISO-8859-*". As you say, an ASCII-8BIT string's 8-bit range is undefined. But Ruby doesn't matter that. In the real world such phenomenon is sometimes discovered.

For example the charset of HTTP Header is usually ISO-8859-1. Many languages struggled how to handle these octets. Python and .NET handles this as binary. It prevents to leverage powerful String methods to such binary data. Ruby handles it as ASCII-8BIT. Ruby's insight is binaries Ruby handles is usually such octets. The name `ASCII-8BIT` reflects such insight.

Therefore the conclusion for your question is that they are just what the real world is. The name just reflects that.


Anyway Rails programmers don't need such understanding usually. If renaming cares people who just hit the surface of this chaos, it might be worth considered, though changing encoding.name may hit the compatibility issue.

----------------------------------------
Feature #18576: Rename `ASCII-8BIT` encoding to `BINARY`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18576#change-96438

* Author: byroot (Jean Boussier)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
### Context

I'm now used to it, but something that confused me for years was errors such as:

```ruby
>> "f辿e" + "\xFF".b
(irb):3:in `+': incompatible character encodings: UTF-8 and ASCII-8BIT (Encoding::CompatibilityError)
```

When you aren't that familiar with Ruby, it's really not evident that `ASCII-8BIT` basically means "no encoding" or "binary".

And even when you know it, if you don't read carefully it's very easily confused with `US-ASCII`.

The `Encoding::BINARY` alias is much more telling IMHO.

### Proposal

Since `Encoding::ASCII_8BIT` has been aliased as `Encoding::BINARY` for years, I think renaming it to `BINARY` and then making asking `ASCII_8BIT` the alias would significantly improve usability without backward compatibility concerns.

The only concern I could see would be the consistency with a handful of C API functions:

  - `rb_encoding *rb_ascii8bit_encoding(void)`
  - `int rb_ascii8bit_encindex(void)`
  - `VALUE rb_io_ascii8bit_binmode(VALUE io)`

But that's for much more advanced users, so I don't think it's much of a concern.




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

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

In This Thread