From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS4713 221.184.0.0/13 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (neon.ruby-lang.org [221.186.184.75]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA7D1F597 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:40:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73183120A6F; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 05:40:43 +0900 (JST) Received: from o1678948x4.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net (o1678948x4.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net [167.89.48.4]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E64601209F2 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 05:40:40 +0900 (JST) Received: by filter0051p3iad2.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0051p3iad2-1148-5B5A31C4-5E 2018-07-26 20:40:36.721103319 +0000 UTC m=+77836.369590874 Received: from herokuapp.com (ec2-107-22-101-126.compute-1.amazonaws.com [107.22.101.126]) by ismtpd0025p1iad2.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id 5pFOFCPdQZuB5G1q7hfwAg Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:40:36.829 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:40:37 +0000 (UTC) From: shannonskipper@gmail.com To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Redmine-MailingListIntegration-Message-Ids: 63506 X-Redmine-Project: ruby-trunk X-Redmine-Issue-Id: 13683 X-Redmine-Issue-Author: dnagir X-Redmine-Sender: shan X-Mailer: Redmine X-Redmine-Host: bugs.ruby-lang.org X-Redmine-Site: Ruby Issue Tracking System X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-SG-EID: ync6xU2WACa70kv/Ymy4QrNMhiuLXJG8OTL2vJD1yS7twlZiIcbc49RMZ8KvjpvBA3KB2Zk1kxmQqk Tu9uON+dnVxOAj+OICmwJqYfmp+2jCviFQmMxUwgpC1faaodU6g3ZIF2Tz+HxV7TZfoh2rLoTS2RTr hY2NmZkhv0vyJKmsaLlfBPRXK5x5p/SGQtnGtTGqyoyZxUmhsLxMmW31Iw== X-ML-Name: ruby-core X-Mail-Count: 88129 Subject: [ruby-core:88129] [Ruby trunk Feature#13683] Add strict Enumerable#single 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ruby-core-bounces@ruby-lang.org Sender: "ruby-core" Issue #13683 has been updated by shan (Shannon Skipper). nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) wrote: > How about `Enumerable#just(num=1)` or `Enumerable#only(num=1)`? Or maybe a slightly more verbose `Enumerable#first_and_only(num = 1)`? ---------------------------------------- Feature #13683: Add strict Enumerable#single https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13683#change-73152 * Author: dnagir (Dmytrii Nagirniak) * Status: Feedback * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Target version: ---------------------------------------- ### Summary This is inspired by other languages and frameworks, such as LINQ's [Single](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb155325%28v=vs.110%29.aspx) (pardon MSDN reference), which has very big distinction between `first` and `single` element of a collection. - `first` normally returns the top element, and the developer assumes there could be many; - `single` returns one and only one element, and it is an error if there are none or more than one. We, in Ruby world, very often write `fetch_by('something').first` assuming there's only one element that can be returned there. But in majority of the cases, we really want a `single` element. The problems with using `first` in this case: - developer needs to explicitly double check the result isn't `nil` - in case of corrupted data (more than one item returned), it will never be noticed `Enumerable#single` addresses those problems in a very strong and specific way that may save the world by simply switching from `first` to `single`. ### Other information - we may come with a better internal implementation (than `self.map`) - better name could be used, maybe `only` is better, or a bang version? - re-consider the "block" implementation in favour of a separate method (`single!`, `single_or { 'default' }`) The original implementation is on the ActiveSupport https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/26206 But it was suggested to discuss the possibility of adding it to Ruby which would be amazing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/