From: "Eregon (Benoit Daloze)" Date: 2021-11-16T12:24:37+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:106086] [Ruby master Feature#18273] Class#subclasses Issue #18273 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). AFAIK superclass is always understand as the direct superclass. And given we already have Class#descendants and Module#ancestors, I feel there is very little room for confusion for Class#subclasses (i.e., almost no confusion possible). Of course we can document it clearly in that method's documentation it's only "classes which have C has the superclass", and link to `Class#descendants`. IMHO `Class#direct_subclasses` is verbose and not helpful. Rails already established that `subclasses` is a clear meaning for this. Regarding a boolean argument for `Class#descendants` I'm neutral, I think that's less good and one definitely need to read the docs just to find the meaning of the boolean, plus they might not guess it even takes an argument. `Class#subclasses` is clearer and is already an established name for this. ---------------------------------------- Feature #18273: Class#subclasses https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18273#change-94677 * Author: byroot (Jean Boussier) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Ref: https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/43481 Something we forgot to mention in [Feature #14394], is either a parameter or another method to only get direct descendants. Active Support has been offering `Class.subclasses` as: ```ruby def subclasses descendants.select { |descendant| descendant.superclass == self } end ``` It seems a bit silly to grab all descendants and then restrict the list when `Class#descendants` had to do some recursion to get them all in the first place. ### Proposal We could either implement `Class#subclasses` directly, or accept a parameter in `Class#descendants`, e.g. `descendants(immediate = false)`. cc @eregon -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: