Misc #15431

Hashes and arrays should not require commas to seperate values when using new lines

Added by nsuchy (Nathaniel Suchy) 10 months ago. Updated 10 months ago.



Ruby should not require commas for hash and array values if using new lines. I think the syntax would look cleaner without.


myHash = {
  :key => “value”,
  :anotherKey => “another value”

Could be

myHash = {
  :key => “value”
  :anotherKey => “another value”


myArray = [

Could be:

myArray = [

The syntax looks a bit cleaner, with the new lines is there a need to require a comma? I look forward to hearing the community’s thoughts on this idea :)

Related issues

Is duplicate of CommonRuby - Feature #10528: Allow line breaks instead of commas in arrays, hashes, argument lists, etc.OpenActions



Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 10 months ago

  • Is duplicate of Feature #10528: Allow line breaks instead of commas in arrays, hashes, argument lists, etc. added

Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 10 months ago

It has been already proposed at #10528.

Updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler) 10 months ago

I like the idea from one point of view - convenience. A bit
similar to changes such as require 'pp' being available by default;
of course it is not the same as the proposal here, since the
proposal here refers to a syntax change, whereas require 'pp'
was purely due to convenience. But from the point of view of
convenience, being able to omit "," would be nice - I actually
do sometimes forget this and then have to go to the editor
and add it, so from convenience, I like it.

Of course we can also use, at the least for Arrays, the shorthand
notations, such as %w() and so forth; then we don't need the ','.
For Hashes I believe we have no shorthand notiation, excluding
the : variant introduced some time ago; e. g. your example above
could be:

myHash = {
  key: “value”,
  anotherKey: “another value”

And it would be a bit shorter. Of course we still have to use
the ',' there.

However had I am not entirely sure if it can be so easily
added. Would this not introduce a backwards-incompatible
change? So I guess even if it were to be approved by matz
(and we don't know this as of yet), it may have to come
way past ruby 3.0.

I don't have a problem if this is not added either, though -
while it would be convenient, I don't necessarily need it
that much. We may also have to think about code that is
mixed, such as:

hash = {
abc: 'abc', def: 'def'
ghi: 'ghi',
jkl: 'jkl'

And perhaps other cases. (The ruby core team often needs
definitions/specifications for corner cases too, since
the implementation has to include these cases too.)

Since this is coming up every now and then, I would suggest
to mention it at some developer meeting - at the least to
hear matz' opinion about it. Because if matz does not like
the proposal then there is little point discussing it. :)

But as said, I am mostly neutral about this; only slightly
positive purely from a convenience point of view.

PS: The linked proposal is ~4 years old without much other
comments; perhaps after this may be discussed one day, we
could close down the older issues and refer to only one
of the issues, but I digress.

Also available in: Atom PDF