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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 CB57B1F4B5 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 16:04:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F4A120B13; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 01:04:37 +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 A5FD1120B0D for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 01:04:35 +0900 (JST) Received: by filter0039p3iad2.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0039p3iad2-11109-5DCC2992-44 2019-11-13 16:04:34.197654767 +0000 UTC m=+161095.265085548 Received: from herokuapp.com (unknown [54.173.56.33]) by ismtpd0010p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id dng2A08iTnuoDT8NwOJOYg for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 16:04:34.106 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 16:04:34 +0000 (UTC) From: kuchenbecker.k@gmail.com Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Redmine-MailingListIntegration-Message-Ids: 71474 X-Redmine-Project: ruby-trunk X-Redmine-Issue-Id: 13683 X-Redmine-Issue-Author: dnagir X-Redmine-Sender: kaikuchn 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?PKNd6cjVlXwMRdfuhQRa6Zo2FjJ6nmSnQsOd1eCeeKiQZbb4zYJz48V97VPZEh?= =?us-ascii?Q?BDZQyDyCe06cRdPB7K56lX+iqd9XnKESzGDXRoO?= =?us-ascii?Q?YWzVyFjbLl10vyLfHHAevVb+orMjDUc0yL8D1g7?= =?us-ascii?Q?e5SdxFsSmvDw0AiAxIsP4ZIGZmjWqBrh0TTORo+?= =?us-ascii?Q?0LGu1r6cBGCEpaCqRScaPSIuCRLY9IBANqw=3D=3D?= To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org X-ML-Name: ruby-core X-Mail-Count: 95845 Subject: [ruby-core:95845] [Ruby master 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 kaikuchn (Kai Kuchenbecker). I like `one` a lot. Especially since there's already `one?`. ---------------------------------------- Feature #13683: Add strict Enumerable#single https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13683#change-82678 * 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/