[#97063] [Ruby master Bug#16608] ConditionVariable#wait should return false when timeout exceeded — shugo@...

Issue #16608 has been reported by shugo (Shugo Maeda).

10 messages 2020/02/05

[#97084] [Ruby master Feature#16614] New method cache mechanism for Guild — ko1@...

Issue #16614 has been reported by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).

18 messages 2020/02/07

[#97248] [Ruby master Bug#16651] Extensions Do Not Compile on Mingw64 — cfis@...

Issue #16651 has been reported by cfis (Charlie Savage).

17 messages 2020/02/24

[#97289] [Ruby master Bug#16658] `method__cache__clear` DTrace hook was dropped without replacement — v.ondruch@...

Issue #16658 has been reported by vo.x (Vit Ondruch).

9 messages 2020/02/27

[#97307] [Ruby master Feature#16663] Add block or filtered forms of Kernel#caller to allow early bail-out — headius@...

Issue #16663 has been reported by headius (Charles Nutter).

29 messages 2020/02/28

[#97310] [Ruby master Feature#16665] Add an Array#except_index method — alexandr1golubenko@...

Issue #16665 has been reported by alex_golubenko (Alex Golubenko).

12 messages 2020/02/29

[ruby-core:97229] [Ruby master Bug#16643] Array#dig converts keywords to positional hash

From: mame@...
Date: 2020-02-21 10:57:33 UTC
List: ruby-core #97229
Issue #16643 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).


jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) wrote in #note-3:
> Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) wrote in #note-2:
> > Are you seriously telling me that you consider it normal and correct that `obj.dig(**kw)` is _not_ equivalent to `[obj].dig(0, **kw)` ???
> 
> It should be equivalent, if `dig` is defined correctly.

I personally think that it should not be equivalent.  `obj.dig(a, b, c)` was introduced as a safe-navigation like `obj[a][b][c]`, so I think that `#dig` should accept only positional arguments.  In fact, we cannot write `obj.dig(0, key: 1, 2)`.  So, it looks good to me to reject all keyword arguments for `.dig`.

----------------------------------------
Bug #16643: Array#dig converts keywords to positional hash
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16643#change-84339

* Author: Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme)
* Status: Rejected
* Priority: Normal
* ruby -v: ruby 2.7.0p0 (2019-12-25 revision a65e8644fb) [x86_64-linux]
* Backport: 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN, 2.7: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
The following behavior for `dig` looks very weird to me:

```ruby
o=Object.new
def o.dig(**kw) p [kw] end
o.dig(x:1)     
#no warning
#[{:x=>1}]
[o].dig(0, x:1)
#warning: Using the last argument as keyword parameters is deprecated
#[{:x=>1}]

o=Object.new
def o.dig(a, **kw) p [a,kw] end
o.dig(x:1)
#warning: Passing the keyword argument as the last hash parameter is deprecated
#[{:x=>1}, {}]
[o].dig(0, x:1)
#no warning
#[{:x=>1}, {}]
```

So the keywords are interpreted as a positional hash, resulting in the opposite of the behavior I would expect.

This would be easy to fix by changing `rb_obj_dig` to use 

```
        return rb_check_funcall_with_hook_kw(obj, id_dig, argc, argv,
                                             no_dig_method, obj,
                                             RB_PASS_CALLED_KEYWORDS);
```

What this just an oversight? I can't think of a rationale for the current behavior.




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

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

In This Thread

Prev Next