[#69084] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11124] [Open] [PATCH] lib/*: use monotonic clock for timeouts — normalperson@...
Issue #11124 has been reported by Eric Wong.
5 messages
2015/05/06
[#69138] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11136] [PATCH] webrick: avoid fcntl module — nobu@...
Issue #11136 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.
3 messages
2015/05/12
[#69160] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11146] [PATCH] variable.c: initialize generic_iv_tbl at start — nobu@...
Issue #11146 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.
4 messages
2015/05/13
[#69175] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11146] [PATCH] variable.c: initialize generic_iv_tbl at start
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/05/13
nobu@ruby-lang.org wrote:
[ruby-core:69326] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11167] Allow an attr_ variant for query-methods that end with a question mark '?' character, such as: def foo? returning @foo
From:
duerst@...
Date:
2015-05-23 11:28:59 UTC
List:
ruby-core #69326
Issue #11167 has been updated by Martin D=C3=BCrst. Daniel Berger wrote: > Abandoned all hope: >=20 > http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/5796 >=20 > https://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/135195 I think that this shows that there are several people who really like to us= e a foo? getter with a foo=3D setter. What it doesn't show that there are e= nough such people that it would balance out the confusion for those who thi= nk that a foo=3D setter goes together with a foo getter, at least by defaul= t. With the current state, the main case is covered, nobody gets confused, and= those who want a foo?/foo=3D pair can easily get it either as Matz showed = above (easily reduced to one line) or by redefining the attr_... methods; t= he later is also very easy as it is usually about the first example given w= hen explaining metaprogramming. ---------------------------------------- Feature #11167: Allow an attr_ variant for query-methods that end with a qu= estion mark '?' character, such as: def foo? returning @foo https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11167#change-52594 * Author: Robert A. Heiler * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee:=20 ---------------------------------------- Hi guys, Hi nobu :) Also hi matz if matz reads this, and of course the rest of the core team and everyone else. Today on IRC, this mini-discussion happened (I show a snippet): ~~~ <apeiros> I really miss attr_query or whatever you want to name it <apeiros> which would generate a ? method too <jhass> apeiros: crystal has :P getter? <apeiros> nice ~~~ Ok, so the language crystal has something ruby does not have. We can't let those newcomers get away with making ruby look old now can we! I use ruby not crystal but I very often use methods that end=20 with a '?' query mark in ruby. It helps me in simple if clauses such as: ~~~ruby if hash.has_key? if hash.key? if cat.is_hungry? ~~~ (In the latter, it might be a cat of class `Cat` instance, with an instance variable called `@is_hungry`, and when the cat is=20 fed with food, it is not hungry logically.) We can generate these `@ivars` through `attr_`* right now as is already, such as: ~~~ruby attr_reader :foo def foo; @foo; end attr_writer :foo def foo=3D(i); @foo =3D i; end attr_accessor :foo ^^^ Combines the above two methods into one. ~~~ But we have no way to designate methods that end via '?'. I do not know which API call would be nice. apeiros on IRC suggested `attr_query` I am fine with that. (The name is secondary for me, I would like to have this feature available - what name=20 it would then have is not the main issue for me.) apeiros then also suggested this syntax: All `attr_`* that would end with a `?` token, would be a=20 combination of `attr_reader` and also a variant of the above that has a '?' token, so for example: ~~~ruby attr_reader :foo? ~~~ Would create both a method `foo()` and `foo?()`. People who do not need this, can continue to use: ~~~ruby attr_reader :foo ~~~ just fine. So perhaps this suggestion is even better than a new method (such as through `attr_query()`) (I also have added one more line from apeiros, not sure if I understood it, but I think the above explanation should suffice - here is the other suggestion he did:) ~~~ apeiros> e.g. attr_reader :foo? -> foo? // attr_accessor :foo? -> foo=3D + = foo? // all with @foo of course. and foo? returning true/false. ~~~ Ok, that's it. Thanks for reading! --=20 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/