Issue #7849 has been updated by trans (Thomas Sawyer).


> If, for your needs, you were to define to_st on String & on Symbol, you could have the utility you desire.

Yes, I thought about that. But concluded it was most likely unnecessary complexity when #to_str would work fine.

You say "Bad idea". But show me why it is bad idea other then "them's the rules". I tried to think of a problem case, and the only one I can think of is using `foo.respond_to?(:to_str)` to identify Stringy things and very specifically not meaning to include Symbols. It's possible, but it's a fairly narrow proposition. Not the least reason being that one should never use `respond_to?` if one does not need to b/c it is a fragile approach. But more significantly, what is more likely to be used? This narrow usecase or Symbol#to_str? Clearly the later by far. And the former is easily solved with `&& !Symbol === foo`.

----------------------------------------
Feature #7849: Symbol#to_str
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7849#change-36264

Author: trans (Thomas Sawyer)
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: 
Category: core
Target version: next minor


Even though a Symbol is not technically an honest-to-goodness String, from the standpoint of simple practicality it would help to have Symbol#to_str defined.

There are times when we want an argument to accept a String or a Symbol, but don't really want it to accept any type of object under the sun that responds to #to_s --which is just about anything. This is especially the case when writing DSLs. Having Symbol#to_str is the nice solution to this.

Defining Symbol#to_str may be an exception to the rule, but it's one worth making.



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