From: eregontp@... Date: 2019-04-26T21:12:24+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:92426] [Ruby trunk Misc#15723] Reconsider numbered parameters Issue #15723 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). I think the new proposition by @jeremyevans0 is much better than the current state, and sounds good to me. `@` might not be ideal, but at least it's less confusing than `@` and doesn't have complicated compatibility problems. From my poll on Twitter (721 votes), https://twitter.com/eregontp/status/1116775815461711872, here are the results: Should numbered parameters be: 18% Kept, I like them 21% Changed, @ is for @ivars 5% Simplified, just 1-arg @ 56% Removed, hurt readability I think the "Kept" would be mostly fine with this change, the "Changed" would see more clearly the distinction between `@` and `@ivars`, the `Simplified` would obviously agree, and I'd guess some of the `Removed` would think this simplification helps readability significantly. So in summary, I think a majority of Rubyists can agree on the new proposal (`@`), while a majority of voters disagreed on the current status (`@1`, `@2`, etc). ---------------------------------------- Misc #15723: Reconsider numbered parameters https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15723#change-77781 * Author: sos4nt (Stefan Sch����ler) * Status: Feedback * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ---------------------------------------- I just learned that *numbered parameters* have been merged into Ruby 2.7.0dev. For readers not familiar with this feature: it allows you to reference block arguments solely by their *index*, e.g. ```ruby [1, 2, 3].each { |i| puts i } # can become [1, 2, 3].each { puts @1 } ``` I have an issue with this new feature: I think **it encourages sloppy programming** and results in **hard to read code**. --- The [original proposal](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/4475) was to include a special variable (or keyword) with a **readable name**, something like: ```ruby [1, 2, 3].each { puts it } # or [1, 2, 3].each { puts this } ``` Granted, that looks quite lovely and it actually speaks to me ��� I can *understand* the code. And it fits Ruby: (quoting the website) > [Ruby] has an elegant syntax that is natural to read and easy to write. But the proposed `it` / `this` has limited application. It's only useful when dealing with a single argument. You can't have multiple `it`-s or `this`-es. That's why `@1`, `@2`, `@3` etc. were chosen instead. However, limiting the usefulness to a single argument isn't bad at at. In fact, a single argument seem to be the limit of what makes sense: ``` h = Hash.new { |hash, key| hash[key] = "Go Fish: #{key}" } # vs h = Hash.new { @1[@2] = "Go Fish: #{@2}" } ``` Who wants to read the latter? That looks like an archaic bash program (no offense). We already discourage Perl style `$`-references: (from [The Ruby Style Guide](https://github.com/rubocop-hq/ruby-style-guide#no-perl-regexp-last-matchers)) > Don't use the cryptic Perl-legacy variables denoting last regexp group matches (`$1`, `$2`, etc). Use `Regexp.last_match(n)` instead. I don't see how our code can benefit from adding `@1` and `@2`. Naming a parameter isn't useless ��� it gives context. With more than one parameter, naming is crucial. And yes, naming is hard. But avoiding proper naming by using indices is the wrong way. So please reconsider numbered parameters. Use a readable named variable (or keyword) to refer to the first argument or ditch the feature entirely. ---Files-------------------------------- implicit-param.diff (20 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: