Issue #21389 has been updated by zverok (Victor Shepelev). @jeremyevans0 Thank you for the clarification. I'll try to consider adjusting the docs to reflect the design. ---------------------------------------- Feature #21389: Simplify Set#inspect output https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21389#change-115667 * Author: jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) * Status: Closed * Assignee: jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) ---------------------------------------- As Set is now a core collection class, it should have special inspect output. Ideally, inspect output should be suitable to eval, similar to array and hash (assuming the elements are also suitable to eval): ```ruby set = Set[1, 2, 3] eval(set.inspect) == set # should be true ``` The simplest way to do this is to use the Set[] syntax: ```ruby Set[1, 2, 3].inspect # => "Set[1, 2, 3]" ``` I've submitted a pull request that implements this: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/13488 The pull request deliberately does not use any subclass name in the output, similar to array and hash. I think it is more important that users know they are dealing with a set than which subclass: ```ruby Class.new(Set)[] # PR does: Set[] # not: #<Class:0x00000c21c78699e0>[] ``` However, it's easy to change the PR to use a subclass name if that is desired. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/