[ruby-core:118929] [Ruby master Feature#18368] Range#step semantics for non-Numeric ranges
From:
"Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) via ruby-core" <ruby-core@...>
Date:
2024-08-22 20:43:26 UTC
List:
ruby-core #118929
Issue #18368 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme).
matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote in #note-31:
> It seems this change breaks step over string ranges (e.g. `"a".."z").step(3)`). We need to handle string ranges specifically.
Thank you Matz, I am truly overjoyed the one in charge still cares about backward compatibility.
knu (Akinori MUSHA) wrote in #note-33:
> If we take this compatibility as important and go with it, should we give up `("a".."aaaa").step("a")` or support it?
I'd say definitely support it. That way Range#step behavior remains largely consistent, with just one little special extra for compat.
BTW not sure if it's important but `(:a .. :z).step(3)` is also supported.
----------------------------------------
Feature #18368: Range#step semantics for non-Numeric ranges
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18368#change-109498
* Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev)
* Status: Open
----------------------------------------
I am sorry if the question had already been discussed, can't find the relevant topic.
"Intuitively", this looks (for me) like a meaningful statement:
```ruby
(Time.parse('2021-12-01')..Time.parse('2021-12-24')).step(1.day).to_a
# ^^^^^ or just 24*60*60
```
Unfortunately, it doesn't work with "TypeError (can't iterate from Time)".
Initially it looked like a bug for me, but after digging a bit into code/docs, I understood that `Range#step` has an odd semantics of "advance the begin N times with `#succ`, and yield the result", with N being always integer:
```ruby
('a'..'z').step(3).first(5)
# => ["a", "d", "g", "j", "m"]
```
The fact that semantic is "odd" is confirmed by the fact that for Float it is redefined to do what I "intuitively" expected:
```ruby
(1.0..7.0).step(0.3).first(5)
# => [1.0, 1.3, 1.6, 1.9, 2.2]
```
(Like with [`Range#===` some time ago](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14575), I believe that to be a strong proof of the wrong generic semantics, if for numbers the semantics needed to be redefined completely.)
Another thing to note is that "skip N elements" seem to be rather "generically Enumerable-related" yet it isn't defined on `Enumerable` (because nobody needs this semantics, typically!)
Hence, two questions:
* Can we redefine generic `Range#step` to new semantics (of using `begin + step` iteratively)? It is hard to imagine the amount of actual usage of the old behavior (with String?.. to what end?) in the wild
* If the answer is "no", can we define a new method with new semantics, like, IDK, `Range#over(span)`?
**UPD:** More examples of useful behavior (it is NOT only about core `Time` class):
```ruby
require 'active_support/all'
(1.minute..20.minutes).step(2.minutes).to_a
#=> [1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 7 minutes, 9 minutes, 11 minutes, 13 minutes, 15 minutes, 17 minutes, 19 minutes]
require 'tod'
(Tod::TimeOfDay.parse("8am")..Tod::TimeOfDay.parse("10am")).step(30.minutes).to_a
#=> [#<Tod::TimeOfDay 08:00:00>, #<Tod::TimeOfDay 08:30:00>, #<Tod::TimeOfDay 09:00:00>, #<Tod::TimeOfDay 09:30:00>, #<Tod::TimeOfDay 10:00:00>]
require 'matrix'
(Vector[1, 2, 3]..).step(Vector[1, 1, 1]).take(3)
#=> [Vector[1, 2, 3], Vector[2, 3, 4], Vector[3, 4, 5]]
require 'unitwise'
(Unitwise(0, 'km')..Unitwise(1, 'km')).step(Unitwise(100, 'm')).map(&:to_s)
#=> ["0 km", "1/10 km", "1/5 km", "3/10 km", "2/5 km", "0.5 km", "3/5 km", "7/10 km", "4/5 km", "9/10 km", "1 km"]
```
**UPD:** Responding to discussion points:
**Q:** Matz is concerned that the proposed simple definition will be confusing with the classes where `+` is redefined as concatenation.
**A:** I believe that simplicity of semantics and ease of explaining ("it just uses `+` underneath, whatever `+` does, will be performed") will make the confusion minimal.
**Q:** Why not introduce new API requirement (like "class of range's `begin` should implement `increment` method, and then it will be used in `step`)
**A:** require *every* gem author to change *every* of their objects' behavior. For that, they should be aware of the change, consider it important enough to care, clearly understand the necessary semantics of implementation, have a resource to release a new version... Then all users of all such gems would be required to upgrade. The feature would be DOA (dead-on-arrival).
The two alternative ways I am suggesting: change the behavior of `#step` or introduce a new method with desired behavior:
1. Easy to explain and announce
2. Require no other code changes to immediately become useful
3. With something like [backports](https://github.com/marcandre/backports) or [ruby-next](https://github.com/ruby-next/ruby-next) easy to start using even in older Ruby version, making the code more expressive even before it would be possible for some particular app/compny to upgrade to (say) 3.2
All examples of behavior from the code above are real `irb` output with monkey-patched `Range#step`, demonstrating how little change will be needed to code outside of the `Range`.
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
______________________________________________
ruby-core mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
ruby-core info -- https://ml.ruby-lang.org/mailman3/lists/ruby-core.ml.ruby-lang.org/
