[ruby-core:86740] [Ruby trunk Feature#14701] If the object is not frozen, I want to be able to redefine the compound assignment operator.

Issue #14701 has been updated by naitoh (Jun NAITOH).


matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:
> Use `append` instead of `+=` for arrays. Changing the behavior of `+=` would have too much compatibility problems from side-effect.
> 
> Matz.

Thank you for your reply.
I am sorry if it caused me to misunderstand what I meant to say by writing "the object is not frozen".

> Matz rejected this in http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-dev/9127,
> but I do not completely understand the reason.

I wanted to continue with the discussion in 9127 above.

I do not want to change (redefine) the behavior of +=, -=, *=, /=, %=  against Array.
I only want to define the behavior of +=, -=, *=, /=, %= (etc..) for Numo::NArray class.

Why does the compatibility problem occur as a side effect of enabling this definition for Numo::NArray class?
Is that a matter of performance?


masa16 (Masahiro Tanaka) wrote:
> I think it is enough to change the meaning of
> 
> ~~~ ruby
> x += a
> ~~~
> 
> to
> 
> ~~~ ruby
> if x.respond_to?(:'+=')
>   x.send(:'+=',a)
> else
>   x = x + a
> end
> ~~~
> 
> Matz rejected this in http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-dev/9127,
> but I do not completely understand the reason.

That is exactly what I want.
Although there are concerns about performance problems, I could not understand that compatibility problems arise.

Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:
> because a += b is no longer a = a + b but sometimes something completely different and there is no way to differentiate at the source level.

I think it can easily be distinguished.

> Most notably, it means other variables pointing to the same NArray would get modified in place by +=, which seems highly unexpected.

I think that only people using Numo::NArray should pay attention.

mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote:

> ```
> >>> a = []
> >>> b = a
> >>> a += [1,2,3]
> >>> b
> [1, 2, 3]
> ```
> 
> Most Rubyists know and expect that `Array#+` is non-destructive, so I think that it is unacceptable to allow this.

Yes, I agree with this point.
However, I would like to discuss `Numo::NArray#+=`, not `Array#+`(or `Array#+=`).
If it is a different class, is it strange to behave differently for that class?.

----------------------------------------
Feature #14701: If the object is not frozen, I want to be able to redefine the compound assignment operator.
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14701#change-71695

* Author: naitoh (Jun NAITOH)
* Status: Rejected
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
If the object is not frozen, I want to be able to redefine the compound assignment operator (e.g. +=, -=, *=, /=, ..etc ).

https://docs.ruby-lang.org/ja/latest/doc/spec=2foperator.html

* Redefinable operator (method) 

~~~
    |  ^  &  <=>  ==  ===  =~  >   >=  <   <=   <<  >>
    +  -  *  /    %   **   ~   +@  -@  []  []=  ` ! != !~
~~~

* use case

~~~
> require 'numo/narray'
> a = Numo::Int32[5, 6]
=> Numo::Int32#shape=[2]
[5, 6]
> a.object_id
=> 70326927544920
> a += 1
=> Numo::Int32#shape=[2]
[6, 7]
> a.object_id
=> 70326927530540
> a.inplace + 1
=> Numo::Int32(view)#shape=[2]
[7, 8]
> a.object_id
=> 70326927530540
~~~

With Numo::NArray, using "inplace" instead of "+=" will update the same object so it will be faster.

I want to write "a += 1" instead of "a.inplace + 1".
However, Ruby can not redefine "+=".



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>