03:46 <sola> I'm trying to override the [] and []= methods for a file class to be able to read customizable amounts of items much like a standard array slice (a[5, 2] = [6,7]). This works well enough when all arguments are provided, but when I do simply a[5] for example, then the item after the = sign will now be interpreted as the one that should be inside the brackets. How do I fix this?

03:49 <sola> for example if it were "def []=(i, length = 1, content = nil)" then when I type "a[5] = 7", 7 will become the "length" and content is now nil

03:58 <sola> ah, never mind, I honestly thought I already tried making only the middle parameter have a default value and it gave me an error, but I guess that was just trying to make only the middle one a keyword parameter

04:11 <havenwood> sola: You might even consider a `case args` with `in [index, length, value]` then `@data[index, length] = value`, and an `in [index, value]` as the alternative.

06:00 <leftylink> hey so I know that in the past, Ruby used to have String#each . and they removed it because it's not clear what the unit of iteration should be, fine

06:00 <leftylink> is ARGF#each at risk in the same way?

06:00 <leftylink> it currently iterates over lines

06:00 <leftylink> should I trust that it will remain that way, or is there a risk that it will be removed?

06:59 <leftylink> String removed its Enumerable (and therefore its #each) in 1.9.1: https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/NEWS/NEWS-1_9_1.html

06:59 <leftylink> > No longer an Enumerable: use each_line/lines for line oriented operation

07:05 <leftylink> no mentions found on https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby-master/ of attempting to remove ARGF's Enumerable

07:05 <leftylink> so if there are any plans to remove it, they are secret, unknown, or not yet been put forward

07:39 <havenwood> leftylink: Consider Ruby 1.8 a different language. Matz has been hesitant to break anything since 1.9. That said, something could always get deprecated and removed in a decade. I'd not worry.

13:00 <leftylink> I don't come across or want to do this often, I guess, but I guess every time I do it surprises me that it's not allowed.

13:00 <leftylink> pandabot: rb 0 + p 1

13:00 <pandabot> stderr: -e:2: syntax error, unexpected integer literal, expecting `do' or '{' or '(' - exit 1 - https://carc.in/#/r/hh0j

13:01 <leftylink> pandabot rb 0 + p(1)

13:01 <pandabot> 1 - 1 more lines - https://carc.in/#/r/hh0l

13:01 <leftylink> you have to put parentheses there. I guess because the + is already a method call

13:02 <leftylink> so you could instead do something like

13:02 <leftylink> pandabot rb 0 + (p 1)

13:02 <pandabot> 1 - 1 more lines - https://carc.in/#/r/hh0n

13:02 <leftylink> if you really wanted

15:41 <v0n> If there something similar to Enumerable to deal with file-like objects, which have a content that you can set, append, etc.?

15:41 <v0n> s/If/Is/

17:07 <havenwood> v0n: Have an example of one thing you might do?

17:08 <havenwood> You can do getters and setters on any Object, so I'm not quite following the ask.

19:38 <havenwood> Mmm, maybe you mean like a mixin that automatically uses Delegate to some store like a Hash? I'm just not sure quite what it'd look like, but with an example we can probably point you in the direction.

22:19 <johnjaye> In ruby you can redefine any method at any time right?

22:19 <johnjaye> Is this what's called "monkey patching"?

22:40 <weaksauce> johnjaye yes

23:04 <johnjaye> ok. is there a linting or warning mechanism to mention if this happens to a base class?

23:04 <johnjaye> or do people sometimes have a reason to redefine Array or String

23:09 <weaksauce> redefine?

23:10 <weaksauce> some people do monkeypatch core classes but it is considered a little bit of a smell

23:14 <weaksauce> here's one that lets you decide which you'd like to use https://github.com/fazibear/colorize

23:15 <havenwood> johnjaye: No, no warnings or anything. Folk use mixins or refinements to do it nicely.

23:21 <havenwood> johnjaye: Interface is the only reason to redefine Array or String, but usually if you really, really want to you don't mind if it's lexically scoped so refinements work.

23:21 <havenwood> Most folk just don't in practice.

23:21 <havenwood> Then again, even stdlib takes liberties.

23:21 <havenwood> It's a Ruby thing. Just reopen a core class and have fun.

23:22 <johnjaye> haha ok

23:22 <havenwood> Even in unexpected ways. Like `require 'optparse'` defines a method on ARGV.

23:23 <havenwood> And that's not uncommon, for better or worse.

23:24 <havenwood> "Monkeypatching, you'll shoot you're eye out" is mostly untrue _only_ because irresponsible folk like Rails and stdlib are the only ones who have the gall.

23:25 <havenwood> It's only a problem in case of conflict.

23:25 <havenwood> If there's only one offender, there's no conflict.

23:25 <havenwood> Just make sure you're the worst actor.

23:25 <havenwood> Not ideal, but mostly works, like Ruby namespaces.

23:26 <havenwood> They cause tens of thousands of hours of bugs and related coding but do "work fine" in the end.

23:26 <havenwood> Maybe in Ruby 4 we'll get proper namespaces?

23:27 <havenwood> I don't mind waiting if they're done well. On the other hand, we're late to the game.