I’ve heard-suggested that ActiveSupport, which does a ton of monkey-patching of core classes, would make potentially-nice refinements. I don’t hold this opinion strongly, but I disagree with that idea. A big value proposition of ActiveSupport is that it is “omnipresent” and sets a new baseline for ruby behaviors - as such, being global really makes the most sense. I don’t know that anyone would be pleased to sprinkle using ActiveSupport in all their files that use it - they don’t even want to THINK about the fact that they’re using it.

# Parallel Ruby universes ("Rubyverses") - A proposed interface for # parallel, "semi-private" method or method-and-data spaces via # "closely associated" objects.

A proposal to specify the path for bury with classes as values of a hash arg: {}.bury(users: Array, 0 => Hash, name: Hash, something: 'Value') # {user: [{name: {something: 'Value'}]} So all absent nodes could be created via klass.new

{}.bury(users: Array, 0, 'Value')

{}.bury(users: Array, 0 => 'Value')

I think the issues/problems specified in the comments are not present with a Hash-only implementation. :) I would be supportive of re-considering this feature just for use with a Hash, where I believe 80% of the real-life use cases would (and do) exist. I have encountered this need before in the wild, but not with Arrays.

require 'set' class Array def uniq_elements(&prc) prc ||= ->(e) { e } uniques, dups = {}, Set.new each do |e| k = prc[e] ((uniques.key?(k)) ? (dups << k; uniques.delete(k)) : uniques[k] = e) unless dups.include?(k) end uniques.values end end