Issue #14602 has been updated by jordan-brough (Jordan Brough).

Matz was interested in how dig_fetch or fetch_dig would sound to English native speakers.

As a native english speaker, "dig_fetch" sounds natural and makes sense to me. ---------------------------------------- Feature #14602: Version of dig that raises error if a key is not present https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14602#change-109331 * Author: amcaplan (Ariel Caplan) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- Currently, if I have a hash like this: ~~~ ruby { :name => { :first => "Ariel", :last => "Caplan" } } ~~~ and I want to navigate confidently and raise a KeyError if something is missing, I can do: ~~~ ruby hash.fetch(:name).fetch(:first) ~~~ Unfortunately, the length of the name, combined with the need to repeat the method name every time, means most programmers are more likely to do this: ~~~ ruby hash[:name][:first] ~~~ which leads to many unexpected errors. The Hash#dig method made it easy to access methods safely from a nested hash; I'd like to have something similar for access without error protection, and I'd think the most natural name would be Hash#dig!. It would work like this: ~~~ ruby hash = { :name => { :first => "Ariel", :last => "Caplan" } } hash.dig!(:name, :first) # => Ariel hash.dig!(:name, :middle) # raises KeyError (key not found: :middle) hash.dig!(:name, :first, :foo) # raises TypeError (String does not have #dig! method) ~~~ -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/