[#100309] How to use backport custom field — Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
Please allow my ignorance.
9 messages
2020/10/06
[#100310] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/06
IkJhY2twb3J0IGN1c3RvbSBmaWVsZCIgaXMgb25seSBhdmFpbGFibGUgZm9yIHRpY2tldHMgd2hv
[#100311] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/06
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 4:44 PM NARUSE, Yui <[email protected]> wrote:
[#100314] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/06
VGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciBjb25maXJtYXRpb24uCkkgY2hlY2tlZCBhZ2FpbiBhbmQgdG8gZWRpdCBi
[#100322] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/07
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 7:25 PM NARUSE, Yui <[email protected]> wrote:
[#100326] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/07
SSBhZGRlZCB5b3UgdG8gIlJlcG9ydGVyIiByb2xlIGluIHRoZSBwcm9qZWN0CgoyMDIw5bm0MTDm
[#100327] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/07
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:42 PM NARUSE, Yui <[email protected]> wrote:
[ruby-core:100280] [Ruby master Feature#13683] Add strict Enumerable#single
From:
nobu@...
Date:
2020-10-02 14:14:55 UTC
List:
ruby-core #100280
Issue #13683 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada).
What about pattern matching?
```ruby
case []; in [a]; p a; end #=> NoMatchingPatternError ([])
case [1]; in [a]; p a; end #=> 1
case [1,2]; in [a]; p a; end #=> NoMatchingPatternError ([1, 2])
```
----------------------------------------
Feature #13683: Add strict Enumerable#single
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13683#change-87866
* Author: dnagir (Dmytrii Nagirniak)
* Status: Feedback
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
### Summary
This is inspired by other languages and frameworks, such as LINQ's [Single](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb155325%28v=vs.110%29.aspx) (pardon MSDN reference), which has very big distinction between `first` and `single` element of a
collection.
- `first` normally returns the top element, and the developer assumes
there could be many;
- `single` returns one and only one element, and it is an error if there
are none or more than one.
We, in Ruby world, very often write `fetch_by('something').first`
assuming there's only one element that can be returned there.
But in majority of the cases, we really want a `single` element.
The problems with using `first` in this case:
- developer needs to explicitly double check the result isn't `nil`
- in case of corrupted data (more than one item returned), it will never
be noticed
`Enumerable#single` addresses those problems in a very strong and
specific way that may save the world by simply switching from `first` to
`single`.
### Other information
- we may come with a better internal implementation (than `self.map`)
- better name could be used, maybe `only` is better, or a bang version?
- re-consider the "block" implementation in favour of a separate method (`single!`, `single_or { 'default' }`)
The original implementation is on the ActiveSupport https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/26206
But it was suggested to discuss the possibility of adding it to Ruby which would be amazing.
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>