Issue #15723 has been updated by bozhidar (Bozhidar Batsov).


> I disagree. To only accept uncontroversial features is the death knell for progress. Design by committee is the last thing Ruby needs.

I'm not a fan of design by committee as well. I was referring to the fact he seemed unhappy with the proposal, even though he accepted it. I guess a lot can be lost when you're just reading about something, but it definitely sounded weird to me that he opted to go forward with something he has reservations about. And because there's more backlash than usual for that particular change it stands to reason that there's room for improvement. :-)

> I agree. However, to imply that matz has not already done this before accepting the feature is a tad insulting (I think). matz took over a month from when the @1 syntax was proposed before accepting it.

Fair point. I obviously don't know how exactly the process went. I just know what I can read in the issue tracker.

> The proposal was posted as a note to an existing issue. Provided you are notified about all notes posted to issues (and if you are interested in ruby-core development, you probably should be), you should have had over a month to provide feedback for matz to consider before he accepted the feature.

Another fair point. Sadly I haven't had as much time as I wanted to monitor ruby-core development. It would have been nice if there was some low-volume mailing list about language changes that are pre-approved or whatever. Maybe some idea for the future?

Going back to that particular feature - I still think that using some special var is the best course of action, as I remain convinced that something like `$it` is unlikely to cause problems in real world apps. Even the idea for `$#` is more appealing to me, as that allow us to use just `$#` for a single block param. I think the single param usage is probably the biggest selling point of that change and it's definitely weird that now we have to use a number for this. A shorthand to access all params as array would be handy as well in some instances.

----------------------------------------
Misc #15723: Reconsider numbered parameters
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15723#change-77336

* Author: sos4nt (Stefan Schler)
* Status: Feedback
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
----------------------------------------
I just learned that *numbered parameters* have been merged into Ruby 2.7.0dev.

For readers not familiar with this feature: it allows you to reference block arguments solely by their *index*, e.g.

```ruby
[1, 2, 3].each { |i| puts i }

# can become

[1, 2, 3].each { puts @1 }
```

I have an issue with this new feature: I think **it encourages sloppy programming** and results in **hard to read code**.

---

The [original proposal](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/4475) was to include a special variable (or keyword) with a **readable name**, something like:

```ruby
[1, 2, 3].each { puts it }

# or

[1, 2, 3].each { puts this }
```

Granted, that looks quite lovely and it actually speaks to me  I can *understand* the code. And it fits Ruby: (quoting the website)

> [Ruby] has an elegant syntax that is natural to read and easy to write.

But the proposed `it` / `this` has limited application. It's only useful when dealing with a single argument. You can't have multiple `it`-s or `this`-es. That's why `@1`, `@2`, `@3` etc. were chosen instead.

However, limiting the usefulness to a single argument isn't bad at at. In fact, a single argument seem to be the limit of what makes sense:
```
h = Hash.new { |hash, key| hash[key] = "Go Fish: #{key}" }

# vs

h = Hash.new { @1[@2] = "Go Fish: #{@2}" }
```
Who wants to read the latter? That looks like an archaic bash program (no offense). We already discourage Perl style `$`-references: (from [The Ruby Style Guide](https://github.com/rubocop-hq/ruby-style-guide#no-perl-regexp-last-matchers))

> Don't use the cryptic Perl-legacy variables denoting last regexp group matches (`$1`, `$2`, etc). Use `Regexp.last_match(n)` instead.

I don't see how our code can benefit from adding `@1` and `@2`.

Naming a parameter isn't useless  it gives context. With more than one parameter, naming is crucial. And yes, naming is hard. But avoiding proper naming by using indices is the wrong way.

So please reconsider numbered parameters.

Use a readable named variable (or keyword) to refer to the first argument or ditch the feature entirely.



-- 
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>