Actions
Feature #16769
closedStruct.new(..., immutable: true)
Status:
Rejected
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
Description
Background¶
We've discussed interface to pass Struct attributes (like immutable: true
, which is actually not added yet) at once. But I believe just adding immutable: true
alone is really helpful in various cases. Thus I've spun out this ticket only for immutable: true
from [Feature #16122].
Proposal¶
Post = Struct.new(:id, :name, immutable: true)
post = Post.new(1, "hello world")
post.id = 2 # NoMethodError (undefined method `id=' for #<struct Post id=1, name="hello world">)
Given immutable: true
, an instance returned by .new
is frozen, and writer methods are not defined.
Use case¶
- Allow using Struct's nice features when we need an immutable model, instead of defining a normal class with
attr_reader
s and methods to support the Struct's features.- If it were a Struct,
to_s
,inspect
,==
, and a bunch of other methods are nicely defined by default. Deconstructing a Struct on Pattern Matching is also available.- This level of support from the entire ecosystem may not be available if it's just a third-party library.
- We could achieve a similar thing if we call
Post.new(...).freeze
or override#initialize
to callfreeze
inside it, but it is not fun and feels like a workaround.- Today I suggested to use Struct for a model class to take advantage of the above benefits in a code review, but the implementation stuck with a bare class with
attr_reader
s because the author didn't want writer methods to be defined (of course we don't want to manually undef them from a Struct class either) and callingfreeze
to workaround it seems tricky. I strongly desired Ruby's Struct is useful enough to cover this use case.
- Today I suggested to use Struct for a model class to take advantage of the above benefits in a code review, but the implementation stuck with a bare class with
- If it were a Struct,
Actions
Like0
Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0