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 8AC9D17DD7FA for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:38:06 +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 639D1B5D880 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:45:38 +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 4916197A827 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:45:39 +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 V5x0KInSpsNV for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:45:39 +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 DA29F97A826 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:45:38 +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 C6E7C95241A for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:45:37 +0900 (JST) Received: from [221.186.184.76] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B5E1204B5; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:45:34 +0900 (JST) X-Original-To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Delivered-To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Received: from o10.shared.sendgrid.net (o10.shared.sendgrid.net [173.193.132.135]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4664B1204A6 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:45:31 +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=Xz+bXf949Q0zTgAh77YQfz7hoxc=; b=C6oEQUT1UIf/9B7Y9M c7O55b6XsS+Pz22OZtebOSYuRgNg/pBNJZDwdYuTHoOsmXExMH3P7VZEK0+Tf49+ 6D7khE1LUy0+lAbkspcmrhBaGLZH9TrDbWD88HfRFyUBsPOHdnvBIaj6H64he5yU 45GQebjomqXj76Rw3vAA603Gk= Received: by filter0083p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0083p1mdw1.19454.550E02932 2015-03-21 23:45:25.442473602 +0000 UTC Received: from herokuapp.com (ec2-54-80-107-198.compute-1.amazonaws.com [54.80.107.198]) by ismtpd-023 (SG) with ESMTP id 14c3eba1773.6229.1089c5 Sat, 21 Mar 2015 23:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 23:45:24 +0000 From: shevegen@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: 43016 X-Redmine-Project: ruby-trunk X-Redmine-Issue-Id: 10984 X-Redmine-Issue-Author: olivierlacan X-Redmine-Sender: shevegen 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/Ymy4QrNMhiuLXJG8OTL2vJD1yS5LerxaSZTpKhAPeOgHGz8NpsySgLN3IWWrTZ DsQtxHUR2VKJKSQY67A4eEM6e42azQdyJKCqzv9SKghQlKmWNffCOObUnWaR6ArCpmZDKE4YhyyePX j2PwrLS3PGhvCW+3YKwYy/2u8ug+Q0/Bt7+J X-SendGrid-Contentd-ID: {"test_id":"1426981526"} X-ML-Name: ruby-core X-Mail-Count: 68595 Subject: [ruby-core:68595] [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 Robert A. Heiler. I have no particular pro or contra opinion. I merely wish to think that #include? is a better name because Array also has include? and String also has include?. While a Hash#include? may not be exactly the same as the other two #includes?, I think the name would be ok. #contain? feels a bit weird, I mean you could use Array#contain? too (on the other hand, you could use an alias just as .map vs. .collect; I myself use solely .map, other people can use .collect, things are fine) ok so bottom line from me, I think Hash#include? is a perfectly suitable name for it too as Erik wrote. Perhaps for Ruby 3.0 ---------------------------------------- Feature #10984: Hash#contain? to check whether hash contains other hash https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10984#change-51907 * 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/