From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS4713 221.184.0.0/13 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (neon.ruby-lang.org [221.186.184.75]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C813E1F4C0 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 18:38:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D6F120BA6; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 03:37:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from xtrwkhkc.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net (xtrwkhkc.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net [167.89.16.28]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D25D6120BA0 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 03:37:55 +0900 (JST) Received: by filter0082p3las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0082p3las1-24644-5DB34104-6F 2019-10-25 18:37:57.037986303 +0000 UTC m=+333168.220821892 Received: from herokuapp.com (unknown [18.208.173.77]) by ismtpd0059p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id zex1CiupR9KwxDH9AWgZgw for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 18:37:56.920 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 18:37:57 +0000 (UTC) From: daniel@dan42.com Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Redmine-MailingListIntegration-Message-Ids: 71141 X-Redmine-Project: ruby-trunk X-Redmine-Issue-Id: 16275 X-Redmine-Issue-Author: naruse X-Redmine-Sender: Dan0042 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: =?us-ascii?Q?8sy4RigFvRTdBfCVJrT9zb2J88PC92TMQwdNgaWYaq5IWf1JTKs+fogQn2E4Al?= =?us-ascii?Q?EDNnA54Step3lkSoPnBDKiePimiZjhkT4NkrqL5?= =?us-ascii?Q?NTKEosaEaknuzvXdhf=2FEHwq5FuKz0HauLbj5bHn?= =?us-ascii?Q?=2F2IwJTIaaWV+heqv5FG15T6reRcJM6k7ViWWzqX?= =?us-ascii?Q?DRp8tpX7vOOBT0KRtG3TIqv4z+ByNW3M5MQ=3D=3D?= To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org X-ML-Name: ruby-core X-Mail-Count: 95549 Subject: [ruby-core:95549] [Ruby master Feature#16275] Revert `.:` syntax 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 #16275 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). @zverok I really feel your pain, I had the same reaction when some of my ideas were ignored or rejected; that never feels good, especially so if you strongly believe to be right. Just take a bit of distance, don't take it personally, remember that it's human nature to resist change and that "if your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats". This is going to be true anywhere. This is my personal opinion but it seems (wishful thinking?) shared by many here: The idea behind `.:` is fundamentally good but the syntax is going in the wrong direction. The `map(&:to_s)` syntax was a hack to begin with. Matz himself doesn't even like it. `obj.:method` and `.:method` go in the same direction of associating symbols with functional/callable objects and that doesn't feel right to me, even though the basic idea/purpose seems good. What originally seemed a reasonable compromise is looking less and less so. You are entirely correct that "discussions in this tracker is the way of formulating the whole picture", and precisely in this case the whole picture that is starting to emerge feels... off. It's not a problem that a "new feature causes people to think of new feature requests", but the new features feel imperfect and those aditional feature requests feel like compounding the imperfectness, and that's more of a problem. And the worry is that once `.:` goes out in 2.7 it will be pretty much impossible to go back. Rather than adding this feature and see where things go from here (a.k.a. "ad-hoc"), I feel it's better to backtrack for now and try a slightly different path. And maybe come back to this syntax later, who knows. TL;DR I believe the opposition here is mostly to the specific syntax and its ensuing repercussions, not the idea behind it. ---------------------------------------- Feature #16275: Revert `.:` syntax https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16275#change-82325 * Author: naruse (Yui NARUSE) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Target version: ---------------------------------------- `obj.:method` is introduced at r66667 by #12125 and #13581. It encourages the functional programming style in Ruby. But this shorthand syntax is just for methods of `self` without arguments. It causes another feature requests like #16273 (and lambda compositions like #15428). Such features will introduce a new view of Ruby but no one illustrates the whole picture yet. I worried about such patch work may cause a conflict with future expansion of functional programing style or a just a garbage feature. `.:` syntax is introduced in 2.7.0 preview1, not released in production yet. How about reverting at this time and re-introduce with a big picture. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/