Project

General

Profile

Feature #15918

Pattern matching for Set

Added by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) 6 days ago. Updated 6 days ago.

Status:
Open
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
[ruby-core:93075]

Description

Currently, Set does not respond to deconstruct. Shouldn't we implement it using to_a?

require 'set'
case Set[1, 2, 3]
in [1, 2, 3]
  p "match"
else
  p "no match"
end
# => "no match", should be "match"

Related issues

Related to Ruby trunk - Feature #14912: Introduce pattern matching syntaxAssignedActions

History

Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) 6 days ago

Did you mean in Set[1, 2, 3] ?

Updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) 6 days ago

Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:

Did you mean in Set[1, 2, 3] ?

I didn't, but it should match too; it's the same as my example but with the added constraint that the object should be a descendant a Set. Note that in Set[1, 2, 3] does not call Set.[](1, 2, 3)...

Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) 6 days ago

Sets are supposed to be unordered (any ordering is an implementation detail). If Set[1, 2, 3] matches in your example, so should Set[3, 2, 1], since Set[1, 2, 3] == Set[3, 2, 1]. We could attempt to sort the elements of the set before pattern matching, but some sets contain unsortable elements (e.g. elements of different types). If pattern matching can work correctly when using in Set[...], then maybe this would be desirable, but I'm not sure if that is possible.

To answer your question, in my opinion, yes, we shouldn't implement deconstruct using to_a.

#4

Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) 6 days ago

  • Backport deleted (2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN)
  • Tracker changed from Bug to Feature
#5

Updated by ktsj (Kazuki Tsujimoto) 4 days ago

Also available in: Atom PDF