Issue #13645 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).


Is this valid syntax? I ask specifically because of the '.' character there. I am not
a big fan of the & anyway though, so I am biased. I am just wondering in context of
syntax such as: 

    hash[:key]
    hash&[:key]
    hash&.[:key]

Actually I only consider the first elegant, the rest ugly. But I see your point
in regards to hash&.[](:key) versus hash&.[:key] - if the former already works
as-is, then it may make sense to allow for the latter. What I thought was that
the '.' is explicit for the method call; I guess the last example:

    hash&.[:key]

Would then be equivalent to:

    hash&.[(:key)]

right?

----------------------------------------
Feature #13645: Syntactic sugar for indexing when using the safe navigation operator
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13645#change-65330

* Author: ndn (Nikola Nenkov)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
# Proposal

While it works and makes sense, this is a bit cumbersome:

```ruby
hash&.[](:key)
```

Ideally, we could use something like:

```ruby
hash&.[:key]
```



-- 
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>