Issue #21615 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). matheusrich (Matheus Richard) wrote:

Add `Array#values`, returning `self`. Implementation could simply alias to `itself`:

I think it should be `Array.new(*self)`. `Hash#values` returns a new `Array`, non-frozen and independent from the receiver. ---------------------------------------- Feature #21615: Introduce `Array#values` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21615#change-114684 * Author: matheusrich (Matheus Richard) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- ## 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 `self`. Implementation could simply alias to `itself`: ```ruby class Array alias_method :values, :itself end ``` 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/

Issue #21615 has been updated by matheusrich (Matheus Richard).

I think it should be Array.new(*self).

I can do that, sure.

That word is negative to convince us.

Noted! Good to know.

Why not to introduce Array#each_value?

I think it feels clunkier than `array.values.each`, but is an alternative I considered. IMO it still makes me expect that a `#values` method would exist since it would be a word present in `values_at`, `fetch_values` and `each_value`. IMO *both* could be added, so Array has an interface even more similar to Hash, but I decided to keep this small. ---------------------------------------- Feature #21615: Introduce `Array#values` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21615#change-114686 * Author: matheusrich (Matheus Richard) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- ## 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 `self`. Implementation could simply alias to `itself`: ```ruby class Array alias_method :values, :itself end ``` 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/

Issue #21615 has been updated by matheusrich (Matheus Richard). @Dan0042 I considered that. I thought it would be too much for one PR. I'll wait for more feedback, and if people are positive about this, I'll propose `Set#values` too. ---------------------------------------- Feature #21615: Introduce `Array#values` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21615#change-114689 * Author: matheusrich (Matheus Richard) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- ## 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/