The 'dangerous' aspect is more generally accurate than mutation for this convention but at some point we had nearly converged on the idea that it only makes sense to use ! If there is a non-bang version. That's still what I do. What are core examples where that's not the case? - ThreadSky

skillstopractice.com • 29 days ago

The 'dangerous' aspect is more generally accurate than mutation for this convention but at some point we had nearly converged on the idea that it only makes sense to use ! If there is a non-bang version.

That's still what I do.

What are core examples where that's not the case?

Comments

hacopian.de•29 days ago

Docs call bang methods “dangerous": “the dangerous method implies that...[it] permanently modifies its receiver.” Seems to tightly couple “dangerous” with “mutation,” but could “danger” include other risks, as Piotr and Gregory suggest? Maybe, docs suggest a stronger correlation than was intended.

hacopian.de•29 days ago

Here's a good example: `exit!` exits the process without calling exit handlers like its counterpart `exit` does, a potentially dangerous action that does not involve mutation. https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/3.4/Kernel.html#method-i-exit-21

skillstopractice.com•29 days ago

That is what I was saying...

The convention as best as I know it is that a bang method is the more dangerous version of a method with the same name without the bang.

This is true for exit/exit!

But Piotr mentioned that there were methods in core without a corresponding non-bang version...

chastell.net•29 days ago

Yeah I totally fucked that up, apologies, you’re right that all bang methods should have a non-bang, somewhat safer versions.

That said… 😇

skillstopractice.com•29 days ago

This is what I imagined you might provide if asked, thanks. :)

Now I wonder what percentage of all the bang methods in Ruby that represents...

(I actually think looking at core Ruby to figure out what's canon is not the way, but as an empirical observation it's interesting!)

skillstopractice.com•29 days ago

Also I had no idea what RBS was and now I'm quite curious about taking a closer look at it!

https://github.com/ruby/rbs?tab=readme-ov-file#rbs

skillstopractice.com•29 days ago

... that to me doesn't make sense, just like it doesn't make sense to put a ! on something that mutates the receiver unless a same named non-mutative version is also provided.

(In that case the mutation is why it's "more dangerous")

skillstopractice.com•29 days ago

There are plenty of methods that don't use a ! in core to indicate modifying the receiver as well, clear/update/push/pop/etc.

It's only when you have things like sort / sort! that it matters as far as mutability goes.

hacopian.de•29 days ago

Yeah, the counterpart pattern is not strictly adhered to. See https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/3.4/IO/Buffer.html#method-i-and-21 and https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/3.4/Socket.html#method-i-ipv6only-21. But as we've said even when we have a counterpart, mutation may not be the concern, as with exit/exit!. I'm not really sure what to think; gardens evolve, I guess.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply