# Proposal While it works and makes sense, this is a bit cumbersome: ```ruby hash&.[](:key) ``` Ideally, we could use something like: ```ruby hash&.[:key] ```ndn (Nikola Nenkov)
shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) wrote: > ndn (Nikola Nenkov) wrote: > ... Yes, but it was more of a question if it's a bug or not. Like should I use `%r//` when omitting parens as a principle? If yes - I would submit a PR in Rubocop and so on.ndn (Nikola Nenkov)
When you skip the parens of method invocations and pass a regex, you can get a `SyntaxError` if the regex starts with a space. ~~~ ruby ''.split(/ ./) # => [] ''.split /./ # => [] ''.split / ./ # !> SyntaxError: unexpected '.' ...ndn (Nikola Nenkov)
My point was that whether or not a module will get prepended can have an actual impact, yet it got changed between versions without an explicit notice. Given that the behaviour is documented as opposed to left undefined, I thought that t...ndn (Nikola Nenkov)
``` module M; end class A; prepend M; end class B < A; prepend M; end B.ancestors # => [M, B, M, A, Object, Kernel, BasicObject] ``` Even though I find this behaviour to be more intuitive, it is inconsistent with `Module#includ...ndn (Nikola Nenkov)
ndn (Nikola Nenkov)07:37 AM Ruby Feature #13645 (Open): Syntactic sugar for indexing when using the safe navigation operator