From: daniel@dan42.com
To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
Subject: [ruby-core:95705] [Ruby master Feature#16296] Alternative behavior for `...` in method body if `...` is not in method definition
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 16:53:03 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <redmine.issue-16296.20191105165303.d2c77e5bc960adf7@ruby-lang.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: redmine.issue-16296.20191105165303@ruby-lang.org
Issue #16296 has been reported by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme).
----------------------------------------
Feature #16296: Alternative behavior for `...` in method body if `...` is not in method definition
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16296
* Author: Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee:
* Target version:
----------------------------------------
In #16253 we settled on a syntax where the remainder arguments captured via `...` in the method definition can be forwarded via `...` in the method body. I think that was the correct decision.
But I can't forget about the use case [presented by zverok](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16253#note-6) (and in #15049) where the method definition is used to specify mandatory and default parameters and then forward all of them to another method. I've also experienced that same use case in my code. Using the current syntax we would need to do this:
```ruby
def get(path:, accept: :json, headers: {}, ...)
_request(method: :get, path: path, accept: accept, headers: headers, ...)
end
def post(path:, body:, accept: :json, headers: {}, ...)
_request(method: :post, path: path, body: body, accept: accept, headers: headers, ...)
end
```
Which feels pointlessly repetitive to me. So I was thinking that maybe if `...` is not present in the method definition, then in the method body `...` could take on the meaning of "all arguments of the method". Then the code would look like this:
```ruby
def get(path:, accept: :json, headers: {}, **opts)
_request(method: :get, ...)
end
def post(path:, body:, accept: :json, headers: {}, **opts)
_request(method: :post, ...)
end
```
In those examples (no positional parameters) it would also allow `Hash[...]` or `{}.replace(...)` to get the hash of all keyword arguments.
Pro: it allows a new useful and powerful behavior
Con: some may consider it 'unclean' to change the behavior of `...` based on the method definition
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
next parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-05 16:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <redmine.issue-16296.20191105165303@ruby-lang.org>
2019-11-05 16:53 ` daniel [this message]
2019-11-06 0:56 ` [ruby-core:95715] [Ruby master Feature#16296] Alternative behavior for `...` in method body if `...` is not in method definition shevegen
2019-11-10 10:20 ` [ruby-core:95772] " eregontp
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=redmine.issue-16296.20191105165303.d2c77e5bc960adf7@ruby-lang.org \
--to=ruby-core@ruby-lang.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).