Issue #20953 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Discussed at the dev meeting. @matz liked to align the behavior of Array#fetch_values with Array#values_at here in this case. So a Range should be expanded. ---------------------------------------- Feature #20953: Array#fetch_values vs #values_at protocols https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20953#change-111393 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) ---------------------------------------- I believe that the user might expect `#fetch_values` to be a stricter version of `#values_at`, confirming to the same protocol for arguments. But the current implementation for `#fetch_values` is simpler: ```ruby [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].values_at(0, 3..4) #=> [1, 4, 5] [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].fetch_values(0, 3..4) # TypeError: in 'Array#fetch': no implicit conversion of Range into Integer ``` I believe aligning the implementations would lessen confusion (even if it makes `#fetch_values` implementation somewhat less trivial). The practical example of usefulness: ```ruby HEADERS = %w[Name Department] def table_headers(rows) HEADERS.fetch_values(...rows.map(&:size).max) { '<unknown'> } # Or, alternatively: # HEADERS.fetch_values(...rows.map(&:size).max) { raise ArgumentError, "No header defined for column #{it + 1}" } end table_headers([ ['John'], ['Jane'], ]) #=> ["Name"] table_headers([ ['John'], ['Jane', 'Engineering'], ]) #=> ["Name", "Department"] table_headers([ ['John', 'Accounting', 'Feb 24'], ['Jane', 'Engineering'], ]) #=> ["Name", "Department", "<unknown>"] # or ArgumentError No header defined for column 3 ``` (Obviously, we can use `fetch_values(*(0...max_row_size))` as an argument, but it feels like an unjustified extra work when `values_at` already can do this.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/