Another Ruby 1.9.2 gotcha hashes are not arrays

-
In ruby 1.8.7, the following works

Michael-Mainguys-MacBook-Pro:~ michaelmainguy$ irb
ruby-1.8.7-p352 :001 > foo = {"foo","bar"}
=> {"foo"=>"bar"}
ruby-1.8.7-p352 :002 > foo["foo"]
=> "bar"
ruby-1.8.7-p352 :003 >


In 1.9.2, it fails rather curiously.

Michael-Mainguys-MacBook-Pro:~ michaelmainguy$ irb
ruby-1.9.2-p290 :001 > foo = {"foo","bar"}
SyntaxError: (irb):1: syntax error, unexpected ',', expecting tASSOC
foo = {"foo","bar"}
^
(irb):1: syntax error, unexpected '}', expecting $end
from /Users/michaelmainguy/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.9.2-p290/bin/irb:16:in `
'
ruby-1.9.2-p290 :002 >


Matz/et-al, get it together... this is a pretty significant change and probably warrants a deprecation warning instead of a mysterious fail that in no way indicates what is really happening. This will seriously dampen adoption of the 1.9.x series of ruby for newbies who used the hash constructor the old (arguably incorrect) way.

Newbies, if you try to upgrade to ruby 1.9.2 and you get these strange error messages.... it means you where trying to create hashes by passing comma separated values... if you really wanted to create a hash the ruby way would be

foo = {"foo"=>"bar"}

or, for an array
foo = {"foo","bar"}

by doing {"foo","bar"}, ruby was helpfully (in 1.8.7) translating your call into
foo = Hash.new(["foo","bar"])... note, in the cases I'm finding this, the folks really wanted an array, but because it "kinda" worked, they didn't realize what had happened.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'm not sure doing this is a good idea in the first place:

foo = {"foo","bar"}
September 9, 2011 at 10:16 PM
dasil003 said…
There's a lot of pain in major version upgrades, and moving from Ruby 1.8 to 1.9 has quite a few challenges, especially wrt to dependencies. Given that this is always a trivial change to fix for both 1.8 and 1.9, I have a hard time supporting idea that it needs to have an extended sunset. Might as well get it out of the way right now.
September 9, 2011 at 10:36 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Please use ANSI-92 SQL Join Syntax

-
Image
Way back in 1992, a standard was published for SQL. In it, the syntax for specifying joins in SQL Database was finally standardized. This was a good thing because (for folks who've been doing this a while), trying to decode the vagaries of how various Databases handled outer joins could drive you bonkers yielding different results depending on the parse order of things in the from and where clauses. Unfortunately, some DBMS vendors took a while to adopt this standard (Oracle didn't support it until 2001), but at this point if you're using a major RDBMS and NOT using it, you're probably mired in a tradition or habit that bears changing. As an example of what I'm describing, here are some examples of what I mean. Old School (no standard syntax + implementation and evaluation of predicates varied by vendor [and query]): select * from customer, order where customer.customer = order.customerid ANSI way (agreed to standard, predicate evaluation has some rules
Read more

the myth of asynchronous JDBC

-
Image
I keep seeing people (especially in the scala/typesafe world) posting about async jdbc libraries. STOP IT! Under the current APIs, async JDBC belongs in a realm with Unicorns, Tiger Squirrels, and 8' spiders. While you might be able to move the blocking operations and queue requests and keep your "main" worker threads from blocking, jdbc is synchronous. At some point, somewhere, there's going to be a thread blocking waiting for a response. It's frustrating to see so many folks hyping this and muddying the waters. Unless you write your own client for a dbms and have a dbms that can multiplex calls over a single connection (or using some other strategy to enable this capability) db access is going to block. It's not impossible to make the calls completely async, but nobody's built it yet. Yes, I know ajdbc is taking a stab at this capability, but even IT uses a thread pool for the blocking calls (be default). Someday we'll have async databa
Read more

The difference between Scalability, Performance, Efficiency, and Concurrency explained

-
I thought I'd give some explanation of the difference between scalability, performance, Efficiency, and concurrency. To make things more accessible (and because I'm watching a cooking show on TV) I'm going to use a baking metaphor to help explain the differences. In our case, the system in question is baking cookies for consumers. Scalability, is how well something responds to adding more resources. If we can double our capacity by doubling the number of resources, we've got linear scalability. In our baking example, if we add more ingredients, we can scale to a larger number of cookies. To contrast with our other metrics, this doesn't actually increase the performance of creating a single cookie (they still take 10 minutes to bake), and the efficiency is the same (we just have more capacity). We also cannot bake more cookies in a fixed time period, but over a larger time period we can produce more cookies. Performance is how fast something can get done, u
Read more