[ruby-core:59602] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9340] Document order related behavior in Array#uniq

Issue #9340 has been updated by tmm1 (Aman Gupta).

Assignee set to naruse (Yui NARUSE)
Target version set to next minor
% Done changed from 100 to 0
Backport changed from 1.9.3: UNKNOWN, 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN to 1.9.3: UNKNOWN, 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: REQUIRED


----------------------------------------
Bug #9340: Document order related behavior in Array#uniq
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9340#change-44131

Author: agrimm (Andrew Grimm)
Status: Closed
Priority: Normal
Assignee: naruse (Yui NARUSE)
Category: 
Target version: next minor
ruby -v: ruby 2.1.0p0 (2013-12-25 revision 44422) [x86_64-linux]
Backport: 1.9.3: UNKNOWN, 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: REQUIRED


The behavior of Array#uniq without a block in Ruby 2.1.0 is inconsistent with the behavior of Array#uniq in Ruby 2.0.0, and with the behavior of Array#uniq with a block in Ruby 2.1.0.

Array#uniq without a block in Ruby 2.1.0 returns the last item that is duplicate, while everything else returns the first item that is duplicate.

    class Person
      attr_reader :name
    
      def initialize(id, name)
        # @id is not used by hash or eql?
        @id = id
        @name = name
      end
    
      def hash
        [@name].hash
      end
    
      def eql?(other)
        [@name].eql?([other.name])
      end
    end
    
    p1 = Person.new(1, "Bob")
    p2 = Person.new(2, "Bob")
    p3 = Person.new(3, "Bob")
    
    arr = [p1, p2, p3]
    arr2 = arr.uniq {|p| p}
    arr3 = arr.uniq
    p RUBY_VERSION
    p arr2
    p arr3

Gives

    "2.1.0"
    [#<Person:0x007f1b47ef7720 @id=1, @name="Bob">]
    [#<Person:0x007f1b47ef7680 @id=3, @name="Bob">]
    
    "2.0.0"
    [#<Person:0x007ffa9203bf30 @id=1, @name="Bob">]
    [#<Person:0x007ffa9203bf30 @id=1, @name="Bob">]

This behavior does not contradict what RDoc says about Array#uniq, so people ought not to rely upon which duplicate item is chosen. However, at the very least, different behavior for Array#uniq with and without a block would be somewhat unexpected.

Should the documentation explicitly warn that uniq is not guaranteed to choose the first duplicate item?

As Ruby 2.1.0 has already been released, I assume it is too late to change the behavior of Array#uniq .


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