From: duerst@... Date: 2014-05-07T05:54:29+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:62439] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9807] String.new with block Issue #9807 has been updated by Martin D��rst. Michael Kohl wrote: > After a discussion in our team chat today, I wondered if it would be a good idea to have a version of String.new that accepts a block and works as a string builder. Something like > > string = String.new("foo") do |s| > s << "bar" > end > string #=> "foobar" > > If the argument is omitted an empty string would be passed to the block instead. Like Matthew, I'd also like to see some examples, in particular one that shows how this is different from String.new("foobar") (or even better, from "foobar"). > That could be a nice solution to avoid all the Array#join and "".tap hacks for string creation. I think "empty string would be passed to the block" may be quite misleading, because that way, people understand the block variable as a string, which would mean that with multiple <<, it's very inefficient. I think using a different block variable could make things clearer. And showing a simple implementation may make things ever clearer: class String def initialize(...) # current stuff omitted if block_given? builder = [] yield builder replace builder.join end end end That would put the "hack" to collect a large number of Strings in an array to avoid O(n**2) performance penalty of repeated string concatenation "under the hood". The problem I see is that making the builder array available inside a block limits its usability. That's where examples would help. I was just looking at examples of where I use the above "hack", and one I found, which might be fairly typical, is something like: result = [] foos.each do |foo| result << foo.process end result.join That would now become something like String.new do |buffer| foos.each do |foo| buffer << foo.process end end Is that what you have in mind? ---------------------------------------- Feature #9807: String.new with block https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9807#change-46586 * Author: Michael Kohl * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Category: * Target version: ---------------------------------------- After a discussion in our team chat today, I wondered if it would be a good idea to have a version of String.new that accepts a block and works as a string builder. Something like string = String.new("foo") do |s| s << "bar" end string #=> "foobar" If the argument is omitted an empty string would be passed to the block instead. That could be a nice solution to avoid all the Array#join and "".tap hacks for string creation. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/