[#111472] [Ruby master Bug#19274] Error installing ruby 3.2.0 on RH 8 — "aalllop (Alberto Allegue) via ruby-core" <ruby-core@...>
Issue #19274 has been reported by aalllop (Alberto Allegue).
5 messages
2022/12/28
[#111508] Data support for versions before 3.2.0 — Eustáquio Rangel via ruby-core <ruby-core@...>
I was wondering that every piece of code (gems, etc) that use the new Data =
3 messages
2022/12/29
[ruby-core:111545] [Ruby master Bug#19278] Constructing subclasses of Data with positional arguments
From:
"tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) via ruby-core" <ruby-core@...>
Date:
2022-12-30 22:51:48 UTC
List:
ruby-core #111545
Issue #19278 has been updated by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson).
Status changed from Feedback to Rejected
zverok (Victor Shepelev) wrote in #note-12:
> > I don't really understand this example. The initialize works the same way whether you use a Struct or not
>
> It is not.
>
> 1. Both 3.2+ `Struct` and `Data` make a promise that **no other class makes** and is **non-trivial to implement**: if you have Struct/Data-derived class `C` with member `x`, then both `C.new(x: 1)` and `C.new(1)` work.
Your example didn't demonstrate this difference.
> 2. These promises are implemented differently (because different people worked on them :shrug:): In `Struct`, the `#initialize` handles "unify positional and keywords", in `Data`, `.new` handles.
> 3. This leads to different cost/benefit outcome: in `Struct`, it is "like in other classes" but **redefining `#initialize` is non-trivial**, in `Data`, it is "one interesting quirk", but **redefining `#initialize` is trivial**.
I really don't understand point 3. As I showed in the original post as well as as other examples, I cannot "trivially" define an initialize as I would with normal Ruby classes.
> Can you please provide a small realistic example of how would you like to define your Struct or Data-inherited class' `#initialize` to **not break this contract** and achieve the goal you were trying to achieve? We can proceed from there to maybe come to some compromise or better understand each other's points.
To be honest, I don't really care anymore. The problems with `new` on `Data` seem quite clear to me, but perhaps I am wrong. Struct seems to behave in the way I would expect, so I will just use that (or write regular POROs).
Thanks for the feedback.
----------------------------------------
Bug #19278: Constructing subclasses of Data with positional arguments
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19278#change-100909
* Author: tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)
* Status: Rejected
* Priority: Normal
* ruby -v: ruby 3.2.0 (2022-12-25 revision a528908271) [arm64-darwin22]
* Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
I'd expect both of the following subclasses to work, but the subclass that uses positional parameters raises an exception:
```ruby
Foo = Data.define
class Bar < Foo
def initialize foo:
p foo
end
end
class Baz < Foo
def initialize foo
p foo
end
end
Bar.new foo: 1 # Prints 1
Baz.new 1 # Raises ArgumentError
```
I'd expect the subclass that uses positional arguments to work.
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
______________________________________________
ruby-core mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
ruby-core info -- https://ml.ruby-lang.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/ruby-core.ml.ruby-lang.org/