Issue #21615 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto). Status changed from Open to Rejected HI, * Don't use principle of least surprise as your rationale, since background and assumption vary person to person * I don't think Hashes can be naturally considered as Arrays with non-integer indexes. You can tell it from Hash#each behavior, for example * **Don't mention principle of least surprise in the discussion here** Matz. ---------------------------------------- Feature #21615: Introduce `Array#values` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21615#change-114906 * Author: matheusrich (Matheus Richard) * Status: Rejected ---------------------------------------- ## Motivation In Ruby code, it's common to accept arrays and hashes and treat them uniformly as collections of values. `Hash` exposes `#values`, but `Array` does not, which pushes developers toward `is_a?`/`respond_to?` branching. Following the **Principle of Least Surprise**, users may reasonably expect `Array#values` to exist because: * Both `Array` **and** `Hash` already implement `#values_at`. * `Hash` implements `#values` but `Array` does not. ### Example Today: ```ruby def normalize_records(input) items = input.respond_to?(:values) ? input.values : input items.each do |item| do_stuff_with_item(item) end end ``` With `Array#values`: ```ruby def normalize_records(input) input.values.each do |item| do_stuff_with_item(item) end end ``` ## Proposal Add `Array#values`, returning a copy of the elements of `self`. This yields a uniform interface for `Array` and `Hash` values without type checks. ### Alternatives considered * `Enumerable#values`: defaulting to `to_a`, but I found it too broad of a change. * `Array#each_value`: redundant as `Array#each` already covers iteration. Patch: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/14641 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/