[#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:71507] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11690] Update Hash during multiple assignment
From:
6ftdan@...
Date:
2015-11-16 14:17:10 UTC
List:
ruby-core #71507
Issue #11690 has been updated by Daniel P. Clark.
I'm not sure the opts[*] is a good idea. You have have current splat behavior with multiple assignment.
~~~ruby
a, *, c = [1,2,3,4,5]
a
# => 1
c
# => 5
~~~
And the opts[*] is unclear about what it is and what it expects. It could be a Proc.
~~~ruby
prc = proc {|b,c,d| b+c+d }
# if [*] were implemented
a, prc[*], c = [1,2,3,4,5]
~~~
As far as I know **Hash** is the only core object with an **update** method. And in other cases where **update** is used, such as in Rails' ActiveRecord, a Hash is the expected input. So when the **update** method is called it is generally understood to be expecting a **Hash** object.
Implementing [*] would be much more work that simply implementing `Hash#update=`
I was thinking about suggesting `Hash#merge!=` as well but Ruby syntax does not allow the equals sign after and exclamation point. So I have chosen to only suggest `Hash#update=`
~~~ruby
class Hash
def update=(h)
update(h)
end
end
~~~
----------------------------------------
Feature #11690: Update Hash during multiple assignment
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11690#change-54879
* Author: Daniel P. Clark
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee:
----------------------------------------
Given that we can assign multiple variables at once
~~~ruby
a,b,c = 1,2,3
~~~
It would be nice to be able to update a Hash during multiple assignment rather than replacing it. Currently
~~~ruby
x = {a: 1, b: 2}
x, y ,z = {c: 3}, 6, 7
x
# => {c: 3}
~~~
What I propose is adding `Hash#update=` to permit updating during multiple assignment.
~~~ruby
class Hash
def update=(h)
update(h)
end
end
x = {a: 1, b: 2}
x.update, y ,z = {c: 3}, 6, 7
x
# => {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3}
~~~
This would be most useful in scenarios where a method or proc return multiple values. When the method returns the values we don't normally know the key outside where the hash assignment is.
~~~ruby
example = proc { [{:hi => :hello}, 5] }
hash = {}
# Currently in Ruby with an Unknown key multiple assignment isn't an option
hash[????], current = example.call
# We currently have to two step it
result, current = example.call
hash.update(result)
~~~
But with `Hash#update=` we don't have to know the key.
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/