Issue #19000 has been updated by ufuk (Ufuk Kayserilioglu). RubyBugs (A Nonymous) wrote in #note-29:

Hi Matz and Ufuk, please consider that making no-args an error makes programming around this API dynamically more complicated

Indeed, that is true. However, personally, I find a `with` call with no arguments very hard to read and reason about. It just reads badly as an English construct. It is like saying, "can I have tea with".

Semantically one could describe this API behavior as: “an immutable value object with no changes is itself”?

Indeed this is a good idea for what the behaviour should be but does not alleviate the naming/readability concern that I've raised above.

As another reference point: in Scala `case class` this operation is called `#copy`, and I think it returns the original object instance in the no-args case. https://docs.scala-lang.org/tour/case-classes.html

Indeed, it was along these lines that I'd suggested `dup` originally. Like I've said before, I am flexible on what the name should be and `copy` actually addresses the naming concern equally as well as `dup` in my opinion. It also makes sense to ask for a "copy" with no values changed and readability is not hurt in any way. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19000: Data: Add "Copy with changes method" [Follow-on to #16122 Data: simple immutable value object] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19000#change-100459 * Author: RubyBugs (A Nonymous) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- *As requested: extracted a follow-up to #16122 Data: simple immutable value object from [this comment](http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/109815)* # Proposal: Add a "Copy with changes" method to Data Assume the proposed `Data.define` exists. Seeing examples from the [[Values gem]](https://github.com/ms-ati/Values): ```ruby require "values" # A new class Point = Value.new(:x, :y) # An immutable instance Origin = Point.with(x: 0, y: 0) # Q: How do we make copies that change 1 or more values? right = Origin.with(x: 1.0) up = Origin.with(y: 1.0) up_and_right = right.with(y: up.y) # In loops movements = [ [ :x, +0.5 ], [ :x, +0.5 ], [ :y, -1.0 ], [ :x, +0.5 ], ] # position = Point(x: 1.5, y: -1.0) position = movements.inject(Origin) do |p, (field, delta)| p.with(field => p.send(field) + delta) end ``` ## Proposed detail: Call this method: `#with` ```ruby Money = Data.define(:amount, :currency) account = Money.new(amount: 100, currency: 'USD') transactions = [+10, -5, +15] account = transactions.inject(account) { |a, t| a.with(amount: a.amount + t) } #=> Money(amount: 120, currency: "USD") ``` ## Why add this "Copy with changes" method to the Data simple immutable value class? Called on an instance, it returns a new instance with only the provided parameters changed. This API affordance is now **widely adopted across many languages** for its usefulness. Why is it so useful? Because copying immutable value object instances, with 1 or more discrete changes to specific fields, is the proper and ubiquitous pattern that takes the place of mutation when working with immutable value objects. **Other languages** C# Records: “immutable record structs — Non-destructive mutation” — is called `with { ... }` https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/builtin-ty... Scala Case Classes — is called `#copy` https://docs.scala-lang.org/tour/case-classes.html Java 14+ Records — Brian Goetz at Oracle is working on adding a with copy constructor inspired by C# above as we speak, likely to be called `#with` https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2022-June/003461.html Rust “Struct Update Syntax” via `..` syntax in constructor https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch05-01-defining-structs.html#creating-instan... ## Alternatives Without a copy-with-changes method, one must construct entirely new instances using the constructor. This can either be (a) fully spelled out as boilerplate code, or (b) use a symmetrical `#to_h` to feed the keyword-args constructor. **(a) Boilerplate using constructor** ```ruby Point = Data.define(:x, :y, :z) Origin = Point.new(x: 0.0, y: 0.0, z: 0.0) change = { z: -1.5 } # Have to use full constructor -- does this even work? point = Point.new(x: Origin.x, y: Origin.y, **change) ``` **(b) Using a separately proposed `#to_h` method and constructor symmetry** ```ruby Point = Data.define(:x, :y, :z) Origin = Point.new(x: 0.0, y: 0.0, z: 0.0) change = { z: -1.5 } # Have to use full constructor -- does this even work? point = Point.new(**(Origin.to_h.merge(change))) ``` Notice that the above are not ergonomic -- leading so many of our peer language communities to adopt the `#with` method to copy an instance with discrete changes. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/