[ruby-core:95074] [Ruby master Bug#16178] Numbered parameters: _1 should be the same as |x| and _0 should not exist

[matz@ruby.or.jp]

Issue #16178 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto).


@eregon [ruby-core:95070] beats me. I am persuaded. I agree with:

* `_1` (and no other numbered parameters) to work as `|x|`.
* giving up `_0`.

Matz.

----------------------------------------
Bug #16178: Numbered parameters: _1 should be the same as |x| and _0 should not exist
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16178#change-81706

* Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
* Target version: 
* ruby -v: ruby 2.7.0dev (2019-09-24T12:57:54Z master 0e84eecc17) [x86_64-linux]
* Backport: 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
Currently on trunk:
```ruby
array = ["string", 42, [1, 2]]

array.map { |x| x * 2 }
# => ["stringstring", 84, [1, 2, 1, 2]]

array.map { _1 * 2 }
# => ["stringstring", 84, 2]
```

Oops, this trivial code just lost data and completely ignored the element class!
This is clearly contrary to intuition and is very dangerous.

Using `_0` instead has the correct behavior but it's clear we use 1-based indexing for numbered parameters,
and it doesn't solve that `_1` has dangerous behavior.

Basically the current behavior is that `_0` is the same as `|x|` and `_1` is the same as `|x,|`.
`|x,|` is almost never used in Ruby, and for good reasons, it just throws away data/information/the class of the object.
Such a dangerous operation should only be done when it's explicit, and the trailing comma in `|x,|` shows that, but `_1` does not.

So let's make `_1` be `|x|` and remove `_0`.

I am going to be harsh, but this discussion has gone too long without any serious written argument for the current behavior:
I believe it's irrational and irresponsible to have `_1` be `|x,|`, it's just going to lead to nasty bugs.

Try to convince me otherwise.
If not, in one week I want to apply this change.

From the discussion in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15723#note-127
and in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15708

Some reactions to this behavior in https://twitter.com/eregontp/status/1115318993299083265



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