Issue #16348 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).


I have no particular pro/con opinion. When it comes to class Symbol, though, I believe
that this is is a design decision for matz. I understand that some of the comments
in the other threads are related to rails, but the suggestion here would mean to also
add three methods to class Symbol, so the impact of such a change should be considered,
if there is one (including the semantics and design decisions; remember strange 
things such as HashWithIndirectAccess).

----------------------------------------
Feature #16348: Proposal: Symbol#start_with?, Symbol#end_with?, and Symbol#include?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16348#change-82683

* Author: kamipo (Ryuta Kamizono)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
When replacing #match? to #start_with?, #end_with?, and #include? for some reason (address to https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13083 etc), we frequently hit missing Symbol#start_with?, Symbol#end_with?, and Symbol#include? in spite of Symbol#match? exists.

https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/63256bc5d7dd77b2cce82df46c53249dab2dc2a8
https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/a8e812964d711fa03843e76ae50f5ff81cdc9e00

Is this inconsistency intentional?
If not so, Symbol#start_with?, Symbol#end_with?, and Symbol#include? prevents such like an issue.



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