Feature #6056: Enhancements to OpenStruct

• Status: Closed
• Assignee: marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)
• Target version: 2.0.0

[trans (Thomas Sawyer)]

This patch fixes one issue, protecting #new_ostruct_member method, and possibly another by dup'ing marshal_dump, but I need more feedback on the later b/c I've also been told it is not needed.

The rest of this patch provides enhancements to OpenStruct that I feel are sorely needed, these include access via [] and []=, ability to mass update via merge!, minimal polymorphism with Hash and the addition of equality methods, eql? and ==.

https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/95

I'd also like opinions on further enhancements:

• adding #each and #each_pair
• making OpenStruct a subclass of BasicObject

[marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)]

• Assignee set to marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)
• Target version set to 2.0.0

Hi.

In the future, please break requests in independent parts.

• new_ostruct_member will be protected

• == is already defined. I don't think any coercion can be accepted in this case. You can't compare a Set and an Array directly, for instance. Open a new request if you disagree and show use case and how that would be consistent with other builtin and library classes.

• eql? has already an issue opened: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6029 . Please comment there if need be.

• each_pair and to_h is the subject of https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/1400 . Please comment there if need be.

• marshal_dump is not meant for public use, no dup needed. I will remove the explicit documentation once issue 1400 is closed, as one should probably not rely on its implementation.

• "making OpenStruct a subclass of BasicObject". I don't see why and can see different problem with it. Please make a separate request for it with justification (e.g. why should it would be more helpful if it did not implement respond_to?, send, object_id, etc...) if you want this.

This leaves "Access via [] and []=", which we can discuss in this thread. I was wondering about this myself, about why it wasn't implemented like this to start with. I'm inclined to think it would be a good idea.

[trans (Thomas Sawyer)]

Each change should be separate pull request or just a separate commit?

I knew about issue #6029, I was just trying to take care of that a couple of other features while I was involved with the code.

I see what you are saying about ==. I am actually surprised that:

class Q
def to_ary; [1,2,3]; end
end
Q.new == [1,2,3] #=> false

But that being the case, then okay I will remove.

I will also remove .dup from marshal_dump.

I will submit new issue about BasicObject, but briefly, the reason is for of use with #method_missing, to get as many methods out of the way as possible for it's use.

[marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)]

Hi,

Thomas Sawyer wrote:

Each change should be separate pull request or just a separate commit?

Ideally, both. It makes it easier to accept only some of the parts. As I said, "in the future"; no need to split your existing commits. In this case, the difficulty lies in deciding what should be done, not in implementing it.

[trans (Thomas Sawyer)]

I've updated the pull request.

[shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)]

• Status changed from Open to Assigned

[ko1 (Koichi Sasada)]

ping.
status?

[marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)]

• Status changed from Assigned to Closed
• % Done changed from 0 to 100

This issue was solved with changeset r37376.
Thomas, thank you for reporting this issue.
Your contribution to Ruby is greatly appreciated.
May Ruby be with you.

---

• lib/ostruct.rb: Add [] and []=, base on a patch by Thomas Sawyer
  [ruby-core:42779] [Feature #6056]