Issue #8237 has been updated by boris_stitnicky (Boris Stitnicky).


rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas) wrote:
>  So, how the "trying" approach would be implemented?

I overlooked the earlier null pattern discussion here. Apologies. I read Avdi's text months
ago, and I remember Avdi sayin, that null falseyness is "chasing the wind". The problem might
be with falsey nil. Currently, true is like "good", and false "bad": If a statement can't return
a "good thing" (and returns nil), "bad" is assumed. Falseyness of nil introduces inequality
between true and false, and forces nil to fulfill two disparate roles: That of "bad thing", and
that of null object.

So imho, I am against syntactic features, that would bring nil closer to the role of ersatz null
object. Users with null object needs should use null object explicitly, rather than ask to make
nil better fake null. That is, unless they are ready to break the taboo and ask Matz to make nil
"good", with the avalanche of changes and backwards incompatibility it would cause. (More apologies
for daring to discuss such a deep stuff here.)

I personally like null object idea, but fear to use it in practice. I fear they will slow things
down, bloat code, and whatnot. For example, with nil, I can say:

@instance_variable ||= :default

With null object, I have to say

@instance_variable.null? ? :default : @instance_variable

If these fears can be addressed, if Ruby creators can give users clear pragmatic encouragement
to use explicit null pattern where called for, much of the problem discussed here would go away.
----------------------------------------
Feature #8237: Logical method chaining via inferred receiver
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8237#change-38869

Author: wardrop (Tom Wardrop)
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: 
Category: 
Target version: 


=begin
This is a feature suggestion that was raised while discussing issue #8191. The feature suggestion is to introduce some form of logical method chaining to address this reasonably common pattern:

    user && user.profile && user.profile.website && user.profile.website.thumbnail

It would be reasonably trivial to shorten this to:

    user && .profile && .website && .thumbnail

The implementation I propose would be for Ruby to allow an inferred receiver; the dot prefix would be the syntax for this. The inferred receiver would resolve to the result of the last expression in the current scope. For illustrative purposes, the following would work under this proposal:

    "some string"
    puts .upcase #=> SOME STRING

Another example:

    puts .upcase if obj.success_message || obj.error_message

    # Instead of...

    message = (obj.success_message || obj.error_message)
    puts message.upcase if message

This can also potentially provide an alternative option in syntactically awkward scenario's, such as dealing with the return value of an if statement or a catch block, avoiding the need for temporary variable assignment:

    catch :halt do
      # Do something
    end

    if .nil?
       log.info "Request was halted" 
       response.body = "Sorry, but your request could not be completed"
    end

The logical chaining scenario is the main use case however. I just wanted to demonstrate how the proposed implementation could also be used in other creative ways.

=end


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