Project

General

Profile

Actions

Feature #11167

closed

Allow an attr_ variant for query-methods that end with a question mark '?' character, such as: def foo? returning @foo

Feature #11167: Allow an attr_ variant for query-methods that end with a question mark '?' character, such as: def foo? returning @foo

Added by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler) over 10 years ago. Updated almost 6 years ago.

Status:
Rejected
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
[ruby-core:<unknown>]

Description

Hi guys,

Hi nobu :)

Also hi matz if matz reads this, and of course the rest of the core
team and everyone else.

Today on IRC, this mini-discussion happened (I show a snippet):

<apeiros> I really miss attr_query or whatever you want to name it <apeiros> which would generate a ? method too <jhass> apeiros: crystal has :P getter? <apeiros> nice 

Ok, so the language crystal has something ruby does not have.

We can't let those newcomers get away with making ruby look old
now can we!

I use ruby not crystal but I very often use methods that end
with a '?' query mark in ruby. It helps me in simple if clauses
such as:

if hash.has_key? if hash.key? if cat.is_hungry? 

(In the latter, it might be a cat of class Cat instance, with
an instance variable called @is_hungry, and when the cat is
fed with food, it is not hungry logically.)

We can generate these @ivars through attr_* right now as is
already, such as:

attr_reader :foo def foo; @foo; end attr_writer :foo def foo=(i); @foo = i; end attr_accessor :foo ^^^ Combines the above two methods into one. 

But we have no way to designate methods that end via '?'.

I do not know which API call would be nice. apeiros on
IRC suggested attr_query

I am fine with that. (The name is secondary for me, I
would like to have this feature available - what name
it would then have is not the main issue for me.)

apeiros then also suggested this syntax:

All attr_* that would end with a ? token, would be a
combination of attr_reader and also a variant of the
above that has a '?' token, so for example:

attr_reader :foo? 

Would create both a method foo() and foo?().

People who do not need this, can continue to use:

attr_reader :foo 

just fine.

So perhaps this suggestion is even better than
a new method (such as through attr_query())

(I also have added one more line from apeiros,
not sure if I understood it, but I think the
above explanation should suffice - here is the
other suggestion he did:)

apeiros> e.g. attr_reader :foo? -> foo? // attr_accessor :foo? -> foo= + foo? // all with @foo of course. and foo? returning true/false. 

Ok, that's it.

Thanks for reading!


Related issues 3 (0 open3 closed)

Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) over 10 years ago Actions #1

  • Is duplicate of Feature #10720: A proposal for something like: attr_reader :foo? - with the trailing '?' question mark added

Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) over 10 years ago Actions #2

  • Description updated (diff)

Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) over 10 years ago Actions #3

Hi,

Is there any real-world use-case for the proposal?
It seems

 def foo? @foo end 

is just fine.

Matz.

Updated by spatulasnout (B Kelly) over 10 years ago Actions #5 [ruby-core:69320]

Hi Matz,

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

Is there any real-world use-case for the proposal?

I've wanted this feature for years. :)

Here's an example from code I'm working with today:

 def startup_complete? @startup_complete end 

I would have preferred:

 attr_reader :startup_complete? 

It seems

 def foo? @foo end 

is just fine.

Perhaps fine, but clunky. :)

In other words, why do we ever use attr_reader (etc.) at all?

We use attr_.* because it's preferable to writing a bunch of
mini-functions.

The reasons are identical for the '?' variant.

Regards,

Bill

Updated by duerst (Martin Dürst) over 10 years ago Actions #6 [ruby-core:69326]

Daniel Berger wrote:

Abandoned all hope:

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/5796

https://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/135195

I think that this shows that there are several people who really like to use a foo? getter with a foo= setter. What it doesn't show that there are enough such people that it would balance out the confusion for those who think that a foo= setter goes together with a foo getter, at least by default.

With the current state, the main case is covered, nobody gets confused, and those who want a foo?/foo= pair can easily get it either as Matz showed above (easily reduced to one line) or by redefining the attr_... methods; the later is also very easy as it is usually about the first example given when explaining metaprogramming.

Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) over 9 years ago Actions #7

  • Status changed from Open to Rejected

See #12046.

Matz.

Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) over 6 years ago Actions #8

  • Related to Feature #12046: Allow attr_reader :foo? to define instance method foo? for accessing @foo added

Updated by anders (Anders Bälter) almost 6 years ago Actions #9 [ruby-core:96754]

Like that!

sudo (Sudo Nice) wrote:

How about implementing it similarly to Crystal?

attr_accessor? :foo 

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/5781#note-16

Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 3 months ago Actions #10

  • Has duplicate Feature #21555: Add support for predicate attribute reader names added
Actions

Also available in: PDF Atom