[#75225] [Ruby trunk Feature#12324] Support OpenSSL 1.1.0 (and drop support for 0.9.6/0.9.7) — k@...
Issue #12324 has been reported by Kazuki Yamaguchi.
6 messages
2016/04/27
[#78693] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#12324] Support OpenSSL 1.1.0 (and drop support for 0.9.6/0.9.7)
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2016/12/17
k@rhe.jp wrote:
[#78701] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#12324] Support OpenSSL 1.1.0 (and drop support for 0.9.6/0.9.7)
— Kazuki Yamaguchi <k@...>
2016/12/17
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 01:31:12AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
[#78702] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#12324] Support OpenSSL 1.1.0 (and drop support for 0.9.6/0.9.7)
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2016/12/17
Kazuki Yamaguchi <k@rhe.jp> wrote:
[ruby-core:74992] [Ruby trunk Bug#11816] Partial safe navigation operator
From:
matthew@...
Date:
2016-04-18 01:11:06 UTC
List:
ruby-core #74992
Issue #11816 has been updated by Matthew Kerwin.
I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of Joan's post, but for this point:
Joan Blackmoore wrote:
>
> It may also be taken into the consideration a little inconsistency when followed by operator method:
>
> optional dot omitted
> `40+2 # 42`
> `40&.+2 # 42`
>
> vs
>
> `40.+2 # 42`
> `40&..+2 # syntax error`
That's perhaps not the right consistency to be searching for; the `&.` operator is a dressed up `.` operator. There's no equivalent sugar-coated safe operator syntax.
~~~ruby
40 + 2 # "unsafe"
#??? # "safe"
40.+2 # "unsafe"
40&.+2 # "safe"
~~~
----------------------------------------
Bug #11816: Partial safe navigation operator
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11816#change-58118
* Author: Marc-Andre Lafortune
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Yukihiro Matsumoto
* ruby -v: preview 2
* Backport: 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN, 2.2: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
I'm extremely surprised (and disappointed) that, currently:
```ruby
x = nil
x&.foo.bar # => NoMethodError: undefined method `bar' for nil:NilClass
```
To make it safe, you have to write `x&.foo&.bar`. But if `foo` is never supposed to return `nil`, then that code isn't "fail early" in case it actually does. `nil&.foo.bar` is more expressive, simpler and is perfect if you want to an error if `foo` returned `nil`. To actually get what you want, you have to resort using the old form `x && x.foo.bar`...
In CoffeeScript, you can write `x()?.foo.bar` and it will work well, since it gets compiled to
```js
if ((_ref = x()) != null) {
_ref.foo.bar;
}
```
All the discussion in #11537 focuses on `x&.foo&.bar`, so I have to ask:
Matz, what is your understanding of `x&.foo.bar`?
I feel the current implementation is not useful and should be changed to what I had in mind. I can't see any legitimate use of `x&.foo.bar` currently.
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>