[ruby-core:118778] [Ruby master Feature#14602] Version of dig that raises error if a key is not present

Issue #14602 has been updated by jordan-brough (Jordan Brough).


> Matz was interested in how dig_fetch or fetch_dig would sound to English native speakers.

As a native english speaker, "dig_fetch" sounds natural and makes sense to me.

----------------------------------------
Feature #14602: Version of dig that raises error if a key is not present
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14602#change-109331

* Author: amcaplan (Ariel Caplan)
* Status: Open
----------------------------------------
Currently, if I have a hash like this:

~~~ ruby
{
    :name => {
        :first => "Ariel",
        :last => "Caplan"
    }
}
~~~

and I want to navigate confidently and raise a KeyError if something is missing, I can do:

~~~ ruby
hash.fetch(:name).fetch(:first)
~~~

Unfortunately, the length of the name, combined with the need to repeat the method name every time, means most programmers are more likely to do this:

~~~ ruby
hash[:name][:first]
~~~

which leads to many unexpected errors.

The Hash#dig method made it easy to access methods safely from a nested hash; I'd like to have something similar for access without error protection, and I'd think the most natural name would be Hash#dig!.  It would work like this:

~~~ ruby
hash = {
    :name => {
        :first => "Ariel",
        :last => "Caplan"
    }
}
hash.dig!(:name, :first) # => Ariel
hash.dig!(:name, :middle) # raises KeyError (key not found: :middle)
hash.dig!(:name, :first, :foo) # raises TypeError (String does not have #dig! method)
~~~




-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
 ______________________________________________
 ruby-core mailing list -- [e-mail]
 To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
 ruby-core info -- https://ml.ruby-lang.org/mailman3/lists/ruby-core.ml.ruby-lang.org/