Feature #15606
closed
Added by sos4nt (Stefan Schüßler) almost 6 years ago.
Updated almost 6 years ago.
Description
-@
and +@
seem to have issues with method chaining:
i = 5
-i.negative?
# NoMethodError (undefined method `-@' for false:FalseClass)
here's another example:
# frozen_string_literal: true
+'foo'.upcase!
# FrozenError (can't modify frozen String)
I know that I can fix this by adding parentheses, i.e. (-i).negative?
and (+'foo').upcase!
but it feels cumbersome.
Shouldn't the above work out of the box?
Unless I'm missing a crucial use case, the precedence for -@
and +@
should be changed.
- Subject changed from Precendence of -@ and +@ to Precedence of -@ and +@
- Status changed from Open to Feedback
Do you expect i = -1; -i.abs
to return +1
?
nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) wrote:
Do you expect i = -1; -i.abs
to return +1
?
Yes, indeed. I'd expect <something>.abs
to return a positive value.
1.abs #=> 1
-1.abs #=> 1
i = 1
i.abs #=> 1
-i.abs #=> -1 <- not what I'd expect
Likewise:
i = 1
-1.succ #=> 0
-i.succ #=> -2 <- not what I'd expect
And a really weird one:
i = 1
-i.to_s #=> "1" <- this is a frozen string
Again, I perfectly understand why this is happening and how to avoid it. I just don't think this is the way it should be, nor do I see why it could be preferable.
Compatibility is essential in Ruby. So, we need strong evidence when we break it.
I do not think the current behavior is weird.
<something>.abs
returns positive value, consistently.
A programmer who knows -i.abs
is evaluated as -(i.abs)
can get an expected result. As a note, -
in -1
is not an operator, so -1.abs == (-1).abs == 1
. -i.to_s
is also explained in the same way.
I agree that the behavior may be confusing for beginners.
Also available in: Atom
PDF
Like0
Like0Like0Like0Like0