Issue #20054 has been updated by rubyFeedback (robert heiler).
Thence, we should get rid of def
I am not sure this is possible. People kind of adjusted to def.
Within Ruby syntax, symbol is naturally used to represent a method name
While I agree, symbols are also used elsewhere, such as for arguments to methods. For instance, in a few projects I use an API such as this: enable :colours (Which in turn calls the method enable_colours; I have a generic enable method, and then use Symbols for that to designate entry points. Correspondingly I also then use: disable :colours to toggle onto the alternate state.)
making the endless method definition syntax look superficially like an "assignment to a symbol" would make sense.
Personally I don't like endless method definitions, but that is ultimately subject of opinions. mame probably likes endless methods. I think one issue I see with the proposal here is, if we look at this suggestion: :foo = method_body Then "def" is gone; there is no "define_method" either. I am not sure this is good. We should keep in mind how people who use ruby - or are new to ruby - look at syntax. "def" standing for "define a method" is quite simple to understand, in my opinion. Python also uses "def". I quite like "def" (I use define_method only programmatically when I have to define dynamic methods). Perhaps I am becoming too conservative with old age, but I prefer more the oldschool ruby variant here - keeping it simple. Just "def". In regards to omitting "end": I can kind of understand people wanting to drop "end" just as I can understand people who prefer: def foo :bar rather than: def foo(:bar) But the saving a few characters should not really be the most compelling argument. I assume - and perhaps mame can comment - that one advantage of endless method definition is that it may be easier to write and help with code golfing somewhat. ---------------------------------------- Feature #20054: Replace the use of `def` in endless method definitions with a new sigil https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20054#change-105608 * Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I propose to remove the use of keyword `def` from the syntax of endless method definition, and introduce a new sigil instead of it. There are several possibilities for what character to use as the sigil, but the most seemingly promising one to me at this point is the colon. So, instead of: ```rb def foo = method_body ``` I propose to write ```rb :foo = method_body ``` There a few reasons to dispense with `def` in endless method definition. First, the current syntax for endless method definition looks too similar to conventional method definition. Without endless method definition, we could already define a method in a single line: ```rb def foo; method_body end ``` and compared to this, what the endless method definition does is that, it only saves you from typing the `end` keyword just by replacing the semicolon with an equal sign. This actually had not made much sense to me. Just saving you from typing the keyword `end` looks too small of a change for introducing new syntax. In order for endless method definition syntax to be justified (as a shorthand for conventional method definition), it needs to save more typing. Second, in #19392, some people are claiming to change the precedence involving endless method definition. I agree with Matz and other developers who support the current precedence in which: ```rb def foo = bar and baz ``` is interpreted as: ```rb (def foo = bar) and baz ``` and I understand that the controversy is due to the look and feel of the keyword `def`. `def` has lower precedence than `and` in conventional method definition, although `=` has higher precedence than `and` in variable/constant assignment. Mixing the low-precedence `def` and the high-precedence `=` into a single syntax was the cause of the trouble, according to my opinion. Thence, we should get rid of `def`. Once we do so, we need to distinguish endless method definition from variable/constant assignment in a new way. What came to my mind was to use a single character: a sigil. Especially, using the colon seems to make sense to me for several reasons: Most importantly, assignment to a symbol is impossible, and it currently raises a syntax error, so it would not conflict with variable/constant assignment syntax. Within Ruby syntax, symbol is naturally used to represent a method name. For example, in `foo(&:bar)` constructions, users are used to passing a method name as a symbol. Also, a method definition returns a symbol representing the method name. So, making the endless method definition syntax look superficially like an "assignment to a symbol" would make sense. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/