[DOCs] Minor inconsistency in class Array #initialize_copy - https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.5.1/Array.html#method-i-initialize_copy
Today I looked at:
The example to this method is this:
a = [ "a", "b", "c", "d", "e" ] a.replace([ "x", "y", "z" ]) #=> ["x", "y", "z"] a #=> ["x", "y", "z"]
What confused me was that I was looking at the method called
but the example showed
I then looked at
And it was virtually identical to
I assume the examples for
.replace() are correct; and perhaps
is just an alias? I am not sure, but I would like to suggest to make the documentation,
in particular the example, a bit more consistent.
When you click on "view source" to look at the C code, they show the very same
content, so I believe that initialize_copy is merely an alias to replace; but I tried
this and they are not fully equivalent:
x = [1,2,3] # => [1, 2, 3] x.initialize_copy [4,5,6]
Traceback (most recent call last): 2: from /System/Index/bin/irb:11:in `<main>' 1: from (irb):2 NoMethodError (private method `initialize_copy' called for [1, 2, 3]:Array)
x.replace [4,5,6] # => [4, 5, 6]
works. So I assume that
initialize_copy is like
.replace() but is a private
Perhaps it may help to add a sentence below the documentation of
replace(), to explain what the use case for
initialize_copy is. Or to perhaps
mention that it is an alias.
At the least how it is right now is that people may read
but then see an example of
#replace. (Perhaps an example for
initialize_copy may help, but either way, I think the current docu-example
is not ideal).
#1 [ruby-core:89401] Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 4 days ago
- Description updated (diff)
Array#replace share the same implementation (and the doc of course).
The only difference is that
respond_to_missing? are defined as private automatically.
What you should know about
initialize_copy to use it, is that you should never use it directly.
Should we remove the name in the doc?