Feature #9807: String.new with block

[Michael Kohl]

After a discussion in our team chat today, I wondered if it would be a good idea to have a version of String.new that accepts a block and works as a string builder. Something like

string = String.new("foo") do |s|
  s << "bar"
end
string #=> "foobar"

If the argument is omitted an empty string would be passed to the block instead.

That could be a nice solution to avoid all the Array#join and "".tap hacks for string creation.

[Matthew Kerwin]

That could be a nice solution to avoid all the Array#join and "".tap
hacks for string creation.

Which hacks are these? Also, I don't see how it's different from
´"foo".tap{|s|s<<"bar"}´

Can you give some examples?

[Martin Dürst]

Michael Kohl wrote:

After a discussion in our team chat today, I wondered if it would be a good idea to have a version of String.new that accepts a block and works as a string builder. Something like

string = String.new("foo") do |s|
  s << "bar"
end
string #=> "foobar"

If the argument is omitted an empty string would be passed to the block instead.

Like Matthew, I'd also like to see some examples, in particular one that shows how this is different from String.new("foobar") (or even better, from "foobar").

That could be a nice solution to avoid all the Array#join and "".tap hacks for string creation.

I think "empty string would be passed to the block" may be quite misleading, because that way, people understand the block variable as a string, which would mean that with multiple <<, it's very inefficient.

I think using a different block variable could make things clearer. And showing a simple implementation may make things ever clearer:

  class String
    def initialize(...)
      # current stuff omitted
      if block_given?
        builder = []
        yield builder
        replace builder.join
      end
    end
  end

That would put the "hack" to collect a large number of Strings in an array to avoid O(n**2) performance penalty of repeated string concatenation "under the hood". The problem I see is that making the builder array available inside a block limits its usability. That's where examples would help.

I was just looking at examples of where I use the above "hack", and one I found, which might be fairly typical, is something like:

  result = []
  foos.each do |foo|
    result << foo.process
  end
  result.join

That would now become something like

  String.new do |buffer|
    foos.each do |foo|
      buffer << foo.process
    end
  end

Is that what you have in mind?