Issue #14277 has been updated by Hanmac (Hans Mackowiak).


the difference from Symbol vs String was from a time long ago before frozen String literals where added

in 99% of the cases, use Symbol if you care about the name, like keys in a hash, key parameters, or method names, or 'enum' values
use String for other cases where you care about the content of the string itself

Symbols are way more smaller in the memory, and ruby can handle them faster (from MRI point of view)
if you use the same thing multiple times, symbols only create once


Now with Frozen String literals, some of that points are not needed anymore



that so many functions that works with method names or instance variables, accept strings too, is just a nice feature for you developers
or do you want to be forced to write v.to_sym or :"#{v}"


----------------------------------------
Feature #14277: Improve strings vs symbols ambiguity
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14277#change-69154

* Author: dsferreira (Daniel Ferreira)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
This is the ambiguity:

```ruby
alias_method :foo, :bar
alias_method "foo", "bar"
```

Ruby developers are using strings and symbols interchangeably as if they were the same thing.
This is happening in ruby core, in ruby gems and in ruby applications.

---

This discussion as started 5 years ago in two separate feature requests (both rejected): 
* [5964](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/5964)
* [7792](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7792)

I believe ruby will be much better once the ambiguity between strings and symbols is resolved for good
and ruby 3.0 is a very good opportunity to do so.

From further discussions I got a light of hope that a solution may be accepted if certain conditions are met.
Specifically, a clear transition path that could lead the community towards the break of backwards compatibility.

In the issue [Make symbols and strings the same thing](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7792)

ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote:

> Please consider transition path for users who are using symbol and string difference like:
> 
> key = ...
> ...
> when key
> case String
> ...
> case Symbol
> ...
> end
> How to find out such programs?
> 

he also wrote:

> If you (or someone) find out any good transition path, we think we can consider again.

Can we discuss here what are the rules that would allow the transition path solution to be accepted?

Also what solutions for the problem are we envisioning?

1. Use current symbols syntax as yet another strings syntax and stop using Symbols?
2. Use current symbols syntax as yet another strings syntax and start use Symbols with a new syntax?
3. Use current symbols syntax as yet another strings syntax and use Symbols purely as a class?

From the challenge presented by Koichi I understand that the transition path to be accepted must allow the current code to raise a warning for the situation where the Symbol is not anymore a Symbol but a String.

Is this assumption correct?

If this is the case then all we need is to make `String::===(foo)` and `Symbol::===(foo)` to raise warnings every time `foo` is a string and it was created using former symbol syntax.

This means the `foo` object needs to contain encapsulated the information of the syntax used to define it.

Any drawbacks?

NOTE: (I'm only considering solutions 2. and 3. for the purpose of this analysis. Meaning Symbol class will still exist.)



-- 
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>