Issue #21389 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). Per https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21377#note-5 (that issue should have been linked BTW, I added it), I strongly believe showing `Set[1, 2, 3]` instead of `MySet[1, 2, 3]` for an instance of MySet would be a mistake. Array and Hash don't show the class name at all, then sure obviously they don't show the subclass name either. No `inspect`, if it shows the class name, should ever show the wrong class name, i.e., not `obj.class.inspect`, that would just be intentional confusion and there is no reason for that. The example with an anonymous subclass is unrepresentative of realistic usages so hardly matters in comparison. BTW here is an example of a core class showing the subclass name: ```ruby class MyModule < Module; end p MyModule.new # => #<MyModule:0x00007f4e318e3ad8> ``` ---------------------------------------- Feature #21389: Simplify Set#inspect output https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21389#change-113508 * Author: jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- 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/

Issue #21389 has been updated by zverok (Victor Shepelev). Status changed from Closed to Open Assignee set to jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) Just noticed that on the latest `master` subclasses `#inspect` didn't change (unlike what @matz suggests here: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21389#note-3): ```ruby class MySet < Set end p Set[1, 2, 3] #=> Set[1, 2, 3] p MySet[1, 2, 3] #=> #<MySet: {1, 2, 3}> ``` Is it deliberate? (Working on docs for the new release.) ---------------------------------------- Feature #21389: Simplify Set#inspect output https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21389#change-115656 * Author: jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) * Status: Open * 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/

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/