From: Tom Wardrop <tom@...>
Date: 2011-08-15T13:18:27+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:38959] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings


Issue #4801 has been updated by Tom Wardrop.


Chris, I'm assuming you're responding to what I wrote, in which case I'd like to reassure you that what I propose preserves symbols, so Symbol.all_symbols will still show the same list of symbols as it would without my proposed changes. All legacy code should still work. All I'm suggesting is to take away the barriers that divide symbols from strings to make them interchangeable in-code, though still semantically different. You'll still have symbols and you'll still have strings, but symbol's will regarded as a type of string (either as a sub-class of String, or where String and Symbol both sub-class a GenericString or CharacterSequence); like an immutable version of String who's name double's as the data it represents. You can't change the value without changing the name.
----------------------------------------
Feature #4801: Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4801

Author: Tom Wardrop
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: 
Category: 
Target version: 


Assuming there's no technical limitation or ambiguities, I suggest that the shorthand syntax for symbol's in the context of an array, be applied to strings also.

E.g. {'key': 'value'}

I don't believe there are any syntax ambiguous that this would give rise to. The only consideration that may need to be made, is if there are plans to support shorthand syntax for quoted symbols, e.g. {'key': 'value'}. If quoted symbols are off the table, then there's no harm in implementing a shorthand hash syntax for strings. This may stem the growing problem of what I like to call 'symbolitis' , where symbol's are selected as the key type purely for their aesthetics and ease of use, even when strings are a more appropriate choice.

Thoughts?


-- 
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org