From: shevegen@... Date: 2017-06-09T09:52:41+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:81634] [Ruby trunk Feature#13645] Syntactic sugar for indexing when using the safe navigation operator Issue #13645 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler). Is this valid syntax? I ask specifically because of the '.' character there. I am not a big fan of the & anyway though, so I am biased. I am just wondering in context of syntax such as: hash[:key] hash&[:key] hash&.[:key] Actually I only consider the first elegant, the rest ugly. But I see your point in regards to hash&.[](:key) versus hash&.[:key] - if the former already works as-is, then it may make sense to allow for the latter. What I thought was that the '.' is explicit for the method call; I guess the last example: hash&.[:key] Would then be equivalent to: hash&.[(:key)] right? ---------------------------------------- Feature #13645: Syntactic sugar for indexing when using the safe navigation operator https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13645#change-65330 * Author: ndn (Nikola Nenkov) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Target version: ---------------------------------------- # Proposal While it works and makes sense, this is a bit cumbersome: ```ruby hash&.[](:key) ``` Ideally, we could use something like: ```ruby hash&.[:key] ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: