[#71439] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11339] [PATCH] io.c: avoid kwarg parsing in C API — matz@...
Issue #11339 has been updated by Yukihiro Matsumoto.
7 messages
2015/11/11
[#71473] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11339] [PATCH] io.c: avoid kwarg parsing in C API
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/11/13
Entire series for sockets
[#71450] Ruby 2.3.0-preview1 Released — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
Hi,
5 messages
2015/11/11
[#71617] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11664] [PATCH] introduce rb_autoload_value to replace rb_autoload — nobu@...
Issue #11664 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.
3 messages
2015/11/20
[#71721] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11741] Migrate Ruby to Git from Subversion — me@...
Issue #11741 has been updated by Jon Moss.
4 messages
2015/11/28
[ruby-core:71321] [Ruby trunk - Feature #10984] Hash#contain? to check whether hash contains other hash
From:
hi@...
Date:
2015-11-03 23:38:02 UTC
List:
ruby-core #71321
Issue #10984 has been updated by Olivier Lacan.
Assignee set to Akira Tanaka
Responding to feedback from Akira Tanaka and Nobuyoshi Nakada at [DevelopersMeeting20150514Japan](https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1kEsXwy0X046Z0RqsvWv6O-gJ-tLY91Mc0vDHYZoJE1M/pub)
> akr: “contain” is too general. “subhash”?
You mean something like this?
```
{ a: 1, b: 2 }.subhash?({ b: 2 })
```
Semantically, this feels strange to me. It doesn't seem obvious at all which hash we're checking for a subhash on and I would expect a lot of confusion with a method name like this. Compare to:
```
{ a: 1, b: 2 }.contains?({ b: 2 })
```
I believe contains is semantically far more self-evident.
It also seems odd to introduce a `sub<class>?` method name for this since I'm not aware of any similar method names for classes that would have similar behavior.
---
> n0kada: “contain?” seems similiar to “include?”
It is. Sadly, I've been told repeatedly that it's a bad idea to try to change the behavior of `include?`. I would prefer replacing the existing `include?` but I will settle for `contains?` for now because the meaning of "contain" focuses on what's inside the object under observation and is far more commonly used than "comprise":
~~~
contain |kənˈtān|
verb [ with obj. ]
1. have or hold (someone or something) within: coffee cans that once contained a full pound of coffee.
- be made up of (a number of things); consist of: borscht can contain mainly beets or a number of vegetables.
- (of a number) be divisible by (a factor) without a remainder.
~~~
---
> akr: do we really use? we need concrete examples.
Yes, RSpec has an ad-hoc implementation of this feature in its `include` matcher: https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/blob/bb731e29f7800f5cef736cf8850293276a0d3f90/lib/rspec/matchers/built_in/include.rb#L94-L97
RSpec has been downloaded 29 Million times on RubyGems. I think this is a legitimate use case. This would simplify not only RSpec's internal code for Hash matchers, but any existing application who depends on this code, for a relatively minimal impact on the core Hash codebase (see provided patch).
I expanded on my original proposal (since then changed from Hash#include? to Hash#contains?) here: http://olivierlacan.com/posts/proposal-for-a-better-ruby-hash-include/
----------------------------------------
Feature #10984: Hash#contain? to check whether hash contains other hash
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10984#change-54696
* Author: Olivier Lacan
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Akira Tanaka
----------------------------------------
Comparing hashes seems like a common practice but there currently isn't a method to ask a
hash instance whether it includes another hash instance.
The most intuitive method to reach for would be `Hash#include?` but it is in fact an alias to `Hash#has_key?`
What I'm looking for can be achieved with:
~~~
class Hash
def contain?(other)
self.merge(other) == self
end
end
~~~
Here's a simple demo of `#contain?` in use:
~~~
{ a: true, b: false }.contain?({ a: true})
# => true
{ a: true, b: false }.contain?({ b: false})
# => true
{ a: true, b: false }.contain?({ a: false})
# => false
{ a: true, b: false }.contain?({ c: true})
# => false
~~~
One important note is that this method is *not checking for nested hash matches*.
This may need to be addressed when the parameters include a nested hash perhaps.
Thanks to Terence Lee's help, nobu created a patch for this feature last year.
I've only modified the name of the method from [his original patch](https://gist.github.com/nobu/dfe8ba14a48fc949f2ed) and attached it to this issue.
---Files--------------------------------
Hash#contain_.patch (2.22 KB)
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/