From: brianhingyenkung@... Date: 2018-05-17T16:42:39+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:87143] [Ruby trunk Feature#11747] "bury" feature, similar to 'dig' but opposite Issue #11747 has been updated by briankung (Brian Kung). File bury_examples.rb added matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote: > It's not clear to generate either Hash, Array, or Struct (or whatever) to bury a value. Would it be desirable to specify the type in a block? That would make it somewhat symmetrical to how `Hash.new` [takes a block][0] as a default value. For example: [{users: ['skipped']].bury(:users, 1, :name, 'Matz') { Hash.new } # [{:users => ['skipped', {:name => 'Matz'}]}] {users: {0 => nil}}.bury(:users, 0, :name, 'Matz') { |next_arg| Struct.new(next_arg).new } # {:users => {0 => #}} # # If the one of the retrieved values is nil, in this case {0 => nil}, # should #bury overwrite it? If this is okay, then it might even be nice if #dig took a block as well as a fallback value: [].dig(1) { 'default' } #=> "default" Additional #bury examples have been attached as `bury_examples.rb`. [0]: https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.5.1/Hash.html#method-c-new ---------------------------------------- Feature #11747: "bury" feature, similar to 'dig' but opposite https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11747#change-72134 * Author: dam13n (damien sutevski) * Status: Rejected * Priority: Normal * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) * Target version: ---------------------------------------- In Matz's recent Rubyconf talk, he used this example for the new 'dig' feature coming in Ruby 2.3: ~~~ruby # we want this data[:users][0][:name] # we can do this w/o nil errors data.dig(:users, 0, :name) ~~~ What I'm proposing is a 'bury' feature that is the opposite of 'dig' in a sense. It inserts a value at an arbitrary depth, for example: ~~~ruby data.bury(:users, 0, :name, 'Matz') ~~~ This will create a nested hash or an array automatically at each step if it doesn't already exist, and that can be inferred from the what the user is passing (such as a symbol or string for a hash or an integer for an array). It's similar to autovivification but more powerful! This behavior is very common, at least in my experience, so a dry method built into Ruby would be awesome! ---Files-------------------------------- bury_examples.rb (1 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: