How can I describe mutable strings when strings are immutable by default?

Question

When a file has the pragma:

# frozen_string_literal: true

all strings written as literals in that file are frozen by default. When I want my strings to be immutable overall, and hence am using the pragma, but want to have a couple of mutable strings, what is the recommended way to write them?

All I can think of is:

String.new("foo")

Was just going to say dup too. It's just that this is the cool new stuff and the community doesn't have a convention on it yet. — ndnenkov
– ndnenkov, Commented Dec 13, 2015 at 11:25
@ndn I don't care about convention. What matter is conciseness, readability, performance, etc. — sawa
– sawa, Commented Dec 13, 2015 at 11:40
there is no new syntax like "foo"u if that is what you are asking. You can't get more concise than Object#dup. As for performance, I would be surprised if String.new is significantly better. — ndnenkov
– ndnenkov, Commented Dec 13, 2015 at 12:12

sawa · Accepted Answer · 2015-12-15 03:34:44Z

8

I had missed it. The recommended way is to use the +@ method string literal.

(+"foo").frozen? # => false
(-"foo").frozen? # => true
"foo".frozen? # => true

answered Dec 15, 2015 at 3:34

sawa

169k51 gold badges287 silver badges398 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

Vasfed · Accepted Answer · 2015-12-13 11:24:23Z

4

You can dup the literal to make it mutable:

"foo".dup.frozen? # => false

answered Dec 13, 2015 at 11:24

Vasfed

18.6k10 gold badges56 silver badges59 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

How can I describe mutable strings when strings are immutable by default?

2 Answers 2

Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

2 Answers 2

Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related