Bug #6086: Number of arguments and named parameters

• Status: Rejected
• Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
• Target version: 2.0.0
• ruby -v: r34800

[marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)]

While working on the messages of "wrong number of arguments" error (see #6085), I realized that the new named parameter feature can lead to misleading error messages:

def foo(x: 42)
end

arg = {x: :bar}
foo(arg) # => nil (no error)
arg = :bar
foo(arg) # => ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (1 for 0)

It would be better if the wording was changed for methods accepting options. Maybe something like:

foo(arg) # => ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (1 for 0 **)

Suggestions?

[ko1 (Koichi Sasada)]

• Assignee set to mame (Yusuke Endoh)

[shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)]

• Status changed from Open to Assigned

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

• Assignee changed from mame (Yusuke Endoh) to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)

Matz, what do you think?

I'm not against this. But I'm not sure how surprising this behavior is,
until I encounter it in actual use case.
"(1 for 0 **)" is not very good-looking, but I have no alternative idea.

--
Yusuke Endoh [e-mail]

[matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)]

• Status changed from Assigned to Rejected

Even though I understand the point, I am against the expression "(1 for 0 **)".
So until some one come up with better expression, we leave this as it is now.

Matz.