Issue #17773 has been updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans).


I'm against this.  `empty?` exists on collection classes, and numbers are not collections, nor sets.  Can you provide a reference to a set theoretic definition of the number 0 as the empty set? Even if so, most Ruby programmers are not working in set theory and treating numbers as sets.

If you are checking for user input, aliasing `zero?` to `empty?` seems wrong, as `0` is a valid non-empty user input.  In general, if you care whether a user input was empty, you should check whether a user input string is empty before converting it to a number, instead of after.

----------------------------------------
Feature #17773: Alias `Numeric#zero?` and `Float#zero?` as `Numeric#empty?` and `Float#empty?`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17773#change-91237

* Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
When dealing with user input fields as in web applications, there are typical values that we want to consider as the default and/or absence of user input. For string/text inputs, list items, and attributes, we have `String#empty?`, `Array#empty?`, and `Hash#empty?` respectively, which seem to correspond to those cases. As for numerics, there are `Numeric#zero?` and `Float#zero?`.

However, there is no single term that covers all these cases. In a routine to check through the fields whether there is user input, we have to selectively use `empty?` or `zero?` depending on the type of the input field.

Many programming languages other than Ruby typically consider these values as falsy with respect to logical calculation. Ruby handles only `nil` and `false` as falsy, and that has clear advantages in many aspects, but with the cost of losing a simple way to handle these default values.

I propose to alias `Numeric#zero?` as `Numeric#empty?` and `Float#zero?` as `Float#empty?` so that we can simply use `empty?`. At first, calling zero as empty might sound strange, but at least for non-negative integers, set theoretic definitions usually define zero as the empty set, so it is not that strange after all.


Ruby on Rails' `blank?` is conceptually similar to this, but `0.blank?` returns `false`, so it is a different concept.



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

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>