Feature #13303
closedString#any? as !String#empty?
Description
Once I proposed "some container#nonempty?" on #12075, and understand there's Array#any?.
Today I found String doesn't have such method.
Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) over 7 years ago
- Status changed from Assigned to Feedback
Use-case?
Matz.
Updated by herwinw (Herwin Quarantainenet) over 7 years ago
and understand there's Array#any?.
This is a misconception, Array#any?
does not check if the array is empty, but if there is a true-ish value in the array:
irb(main):001:0> [false, nil].any?
=> false
This is documented by Enumerable#any?
: "If the block is not given, Ruby adds an implicit block of { |obj| obj } that will cause any? to return true if at least one of the collection members is not false or nil."
Beside that, I don't think String#any?
is a sensible method name to check if a string is non-empty.
Updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler) over 7 years ago
Actually the name .nonempty? is easier to understand than .any? in this
context, or non-empty strings.
I think the only problem is that "nonempty" reads very ... strangely.
I can not come up with a good name either though.
.non_empty?
May seem obvious but I am not sure either there since it is quite long.
I think that nonempty? or non_empty? is better than any? in this context
though.
Ignoring the ruby parser, I guess this here would be one of the shortest,
somewhat natural way to query and ask on an object:
object, are you not empty
object not empty?
I guess the most natural ruby way would still be
object.not_empty?
object.non_empty?
Or perhaps we can ask any container/object if it has at least
one entry. :\
object.at_the_least_one_entry?
The last one is a bit awful though - now .non_empty? or .non_empty?
or .not_empty? would look nicer. :)))
Updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE) over 7 years ago
matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:
Use-case?
if h and val = h["value"] and val != ""
Updated by duerst (Martin Dürst) over 7 years ago
any?
would definitely be the wrong name, because for Arrays, [].any? is always true.
Of the names proposed so far, I think not_empty?
looks best. An alternative may be unempty?
, but that may sound decidedly unenglish :-). Another may be any_chars?
, which would be colloquially correct, but still has the problem that it works differently from a simple any?
.
Updated by rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas) over 7 years ago
Maybe String#filled? or String#filled_in? ?
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) over 7 years ago
duerst (Martin Dürst) wrote:
[].any? is always true.
No, it is always false. I agree that String#any?
is a bad name for the behavior, anyway.
I think that what Naruse-san really wants is, still, Object#present?
.
if h and val = h["value"] and val != ""
if h and h["value"].present?
Updated by stomar (Marcus Stollsteimer) over 7 years ago
mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote:
if h and h["value"].present?
I think foo.present?
semantically should be the same as !foo.nil?
("is the object present?" = "does the object exist?"), which probably wouldn't make much sense as a method on objects other than booleans.
Also:
-
String#filled?
: is "x" a "full" string? ... -
String#any_chars?
: sounds like there also might be e.g.String#any_bytes?
String#not_empty? or String#non_empty? sounds best so far, IMHO (with "not_empty?" maybe easier to remember esp. for non-native speakers, "!" = "not").
Updated by MSP-Greg (Greg L) over 7 years ago
My vote for is for not needed, with second choice of not_empty?
.
-
neg - I don't believe it's always necessary to have pairs of logical attributes/properties, as it certainly clutters up the namespace.
-
pos - Ruby already supports
if
/unless
(we'll consider that not common) -
pos - It makes for somewhat clearer code when a multi-criteria logical statement does not require the
!
operator.
Conversely, all coders should immediately consider a !
a not... So, I don't know if it's really needed...
Updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE) over 7 years ago
I want to use this with &.
Therefore String#empty? is not suitable.
It must returns false if it is empty.
Note that String#present? is also no good because ActiveSupport's present? returns false if its all content are space.
Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) over 7 years ago
possible name of this method:
- #present? is NG because that conflicts with ActiveSupport (AS's #present? have different semantics than what is discussed here).
- #empty? is NG because the OP wants to use it in conjunction with &.
- #nonempty? or #non_empty?
- #notempty? or #not_empty?
- There has never been a core method that starts with "not-"
Any other ideas?
Updated by MSP-Greg (Greg L) over 7 years ago
shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) wrote:
Any other ideas?
Assuming we want to stay away from prefixed or concatenated names, I might suggest -
#content?
Updated by MSP-Greg (Greg L) over 7 years ago
After some more thought (and the desire for a method name that could be used with other objects), I think
#each?
might work for many objects, including those that inherit/include Enumerable
.
Simply defined, each?
returns true
if an #each
block will be performed at least once. Nothing about the values, just their existence. It's also rather short...
Updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) over 5 years ago
I came up with the method name:
solid?
Updated by arimay (yasuhiro arima) over 3 years ago
"#any?" is preferred, since the same method name is harder to forget and less confusing.
If the Array, Hash and String will have new methods, i propose "#having?" as the new method name.
Updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) over 3 years ago
Related to #17330 -> non(&:empty?)