From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: poffice@blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp Delivered-To: poffice@blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp Received: from kankan.nagaokaut.ac.jp (kankan.nagaokaut.ac.jp [133.44.2.24]) by blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5F017DE9C8 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:04:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from funfun.nagaokaut.ac.jp (smtp.nagaokaut.ac.jp [133.44.2.201]) by kankan.nagaokaut.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293AEB5D8A2 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:12:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from funfun.nagaokaut.ac.jp (localhost.nagaokaut.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) by funfun.nagaokaut.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84F497A84E for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:12:11 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nagaokaut.ac.jp Authentication-Results: funfun.nagaokaut.ac.jp (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=sendgrid.me Received: from funfun.nagaokaut.ac.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by funfun.nagaokaut.ac.jp (funfun.nagaokaut.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G5rDeB21iK_n for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:12:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from voscc.nagaokaut.ac.jp (voscc.nagaokaut.ac.jp [133.44.1.100]) by funfun.nagaokaut.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEA997A82B for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:12:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (neon.ruby-lang.org [221.186.184.75]) by voscc.nagaokaut.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34EA795241A for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:12:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from [221.186.184.76] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066A4120451; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:12:05 +0900 (JST) X-Original-To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Delivered-To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Received: from o2.heroku.sendgrid.net (o2.heroku.sendgrid.net [67.228.50.55]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 101B4120036 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:12:00 +0900 (JST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=from:to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id; s=smtpapi; bh=H+sB0HlEEUqC9tc0/7aPTckRba4=; b=olOt3Tn3duXpqpRz1O GcRWOIdHxGiecDn9oM9XDujYThJd3e0Gv0kSyvgIcZYRvQPn4BTZCSsL4K8Oyy7k 5eSAAj0Ia8tMBuNfy/1YLjB/STuk7UHy1IDYJxIZZOJUjbN8gE3wMcMqz4RKuGPD AlwmW4gaB9UPE6ZEFJXhzYHpU= Received: by filter0010p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0010p1mdw1.12152.550AD92617 2015-03-19 14:11:52.840069755 +0000 UTC Received: from herokuapp.com (ec2-54-145-82-115.compute-1.amazonaws.com [54.145.82.115]) by ismtpd-027 (SG) with ESMTP id 14c32604661.e50.401ff for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:11:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:11:52 +0000 From: sferik@gmail.com To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Redmine-MailingListIntegration-Message-Ids: 42983 X-Redmine-Project: ruby-trunk X-Redmine-Issue-Id: 10984 X-Redmine-Issue-Author: olivierlacan X-Redmine-Sender: sferik X-Mailer: Redmine X-Redmine-Host: bugs.ruby-lang.org X-Redmine-Site: Ruby Issue Tracking System X-Auto-Response-Suppress: OOF Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-SG-EID: ync6xU2WACa70kv/Ymy4QrNMhiuLXJG8OTL2vJD1yS6VnWyN4ZSJVH0+5n4B7536Dw36ym3Y3HxL+/ Hkl4zNW6Wly05LR2ri+nsCUskHMQXcf+PHIPHvF6hsAH+iO45ZV1K5IpZkwmdVz8a4U/wEX8v03Dx5 QSh9kWK2in144gxOsqQSDU/KZp8vm281jwxR X-ML-Name: ruby-core X-Mail-Count: 68562 Subject: [ruby-core:68562] [Ruby trunk - Feature #10984] Hash#contain? to check whether hash contains other hash X-BeenThere: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ruby developers List-Id: Ruby developers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ruby-core-bounces@ruby-lang.org Sender: "ruby-core" Issue #10984 has been updated by Erik Michaels-Ober. I agree that `#include?` is a more consistent and appropriate name for this method. I would prefer to see that change introduced in Ruby 3.0 than settle for this suboptimal change in Ruby 2. ---------------------------------------- Feature #10984: Hash#contain? to check whether hash contains other hash https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10984#change-51877 * Author: Olivier Lacan * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ---------------------------------------- Comparing hashes seems like a common practice but there currently isn't a method to ask a hash instance whether it includes another hash instance. The most intuitive method to reach for would be `Hash#include?` but it is in fact an alias to `Hash#has_key?` What I'm looking for can be achieved with: ~~~ class Hash def contain?(other) self.merge(other) == self end end ~~~ Here's a simple demo of `#contain?` in use: ~~~ { a: true, b: false }.contain?({ a: true}) # => true { a: true, b: false }.contain?({ b: false}) # => true { a: true, b: false }.contain?({ a: false}) # => false { a: true, b: false }.contain?({ c: true}) # => false ~~~ One important note is that this method is *not checking for nested hash matches*. This may need to be addressed when the parameters include a nested hash perhaps. Thanks to Terence Lee's help, nobu created a patch for this feature last year. I've only modified the name of the method from [his original patch](https://gist.github.com/nobu/dfe8ba14a48fc949f2ed) and attached it to this issue. ---Files-------------------------------- Hash#contain_.patch (2.22 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/