Issue #14602 has been updated by sinsoku (Takumi Shotoku). I agree with [#14602#note-23](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14602#note-23). I think a fetch-based or dig-based name would be better, since the function can be inferred from the method name. Personally, I feel that **deep_fetch** is a simple and nice name. I often use [deep_dup](https://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/Object.html#method-i-deep_dup) and [deep_merge](https://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/Hash.html#method-i-deep_merge) in Rails apps and are familiar with the method name `deep_*`. I found `fetch_dig` and `dig_fetch` to be a little strange in that they have verbs lined up. I think `dig_strict` is a good name, but I prefer **deep_fetch** because `deep` has fewer characters and is simpler than `strict`. ---------------------------------------- Feature #14602: Version of dig that raises error if a key is not present https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14602#change-105189 * Author: amcaplan (Ariel Caplan) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- 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/