Basically, it's back to the discussion of enabling frozen_string_literal by default.
As far as I know it is not so much a discussion (matz decided to enable it after
all) - the primary question was more when it would become the default. I do not know
when it will be the case, but matz said that ruby 3.0 will not have it by default,
primarily due to backwards compatibility (which is simply a decision to be made
either way).
I have no real opinion on this feature suggested by ioquatix (personally I do not
need it; all my .rb files that I use on a daily basis have frozen strings set to
true anyway) but I think the discussion is a bit coming or going from different
point of views. One point may originate from convenience (I would think so
ioquatix); the other about that it is already possible as-is, via the example
shown by byroot, but also "downward" request that could follow, as shown by
saba - e. g. to add the same to more methods, even if the suggestion here did
not include it.
Again, I have no real preference either way, but the convenience aspect should
possibly be considered, whether there may be a net benefit or a net drawback
of the feature at hand. This may also require perhaps other folks to comment
if they were to need the suggested functionality; I can't speak for them as
I would not need the functionality (I almost never use eval() anymore; in
general I try to avoid plain eval(); only using instance_eval and
class_eval if any eval at all these days).