I often want to use
=== to match a single object on the right side against multiple objects on the left, as is used in
case-constructions, just to return a truth value, and end up writing like this:
bar # => "bar" flag1 = case bar; when "foo", "bar", "baz"; true; end # => true flag2 = case bar; when Symbol, String; true; end # => true
Kernel#case? that should work like this:
bar # => "bar" bar.case?("foo", "bar", "baz") # => true bar.case?("qux") # => false bar.case?(Symbol, String) # => true bar.case?(Array) # => false bar.case? # => false
It is similar to Rails'
in?, but it differs from it in that it uses
=== for comparison, not
Updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) 9 months ago
osyo (manga osyo) wrote:
bar # => "bar" ["foo", "bar", "baz"].case? bar # => true ["qux"].case? bar # => false [Symbol, String].case? bar # => true [Array].case? bar # => false
What is to be evaluated is
bar, not the objects that you put in the arrays.
bar has to be the receiver. That also matches with how
case-construction works. Furthermore, having an array as in your proposal requires additional array to be created, which will be immediately disposed.
Updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler) 9 months ago
This is an interesting idea. I have not thought through all implications but not withholding
that, I like it so +1 from me. I think matz has to decide whether this may be useful. Since
I love case/when in ruby in general, any extension, even secondary ideas, seem useful to me. :)
Although I have to admit, I am not sure if I yet had a use case as suggested by sawa, but I
still think it is a good idea.
I think whether it is on Kernel or Object or Enumerable is not the primary concern (that can
be decided anyway) - if matz is too busy right now then perhaps this could be suggested for
the next developer meeting to get more feedback.
I did not know about Rails in?, but I do not like the name "in?". I have no problem with
One possible question from the core team might be whether the use case is sufficient (for
many ruby users). I can not answer that myself, to be honest, if that question would come
up - but I still like the idea.
PS: I almost overlooked the comment by osyo; I agree, that is a different suggestion so
I was confused for a moment. The original suggestion by sawa is clearer IMO and more
appropriate (to the proposed suggestion); wording it like:
["foo", "bar", "baz"].case? bar
would be different, and is actually a bit confusing to me. So it should best be ignored;
sawa's original description is clearer and makes more sense to me, but this is just an
aside - I only was confused for a moment when I read the second code part by osyo.