What's the best way to implement the enum idiom in Ruby? I'm looking for something which I can use (almost) like the Java/C# enums.
-
7@auramo, good question, and great choice for the best answer. Love it or hate it, you get no type-safety and (at least in Ruby) no typo-safety. I was thrilled when I discovered enums in C# and later in Java (pick a value, but from these!), Ruby doesn't provide a real way to do that in any case at all. – Dan Rosenstark Mar 11 '10 at 09:57
-
3The problem with this question is that Java and C# enums are dramatically different things. A Java enum member is an object instance and a singleton. A Java enum can have a constructor. In contrast, C# enums are based off Primitive values. Which behaviour is the questioner looking for? While it's likely the case that the C# case is wanted, Java is explicitly mentioned, rather than C or C++, so there is some doubt. As for suggesting that there's no way to be 'safe' in Ruby, that's transparently false, but you have to implement something more sophisticated. – user1164178 Feb 14 '15 at 06:33
25 Answers
Two ways. Symbols (:foo
notation) or constants (FOO
notation).
Symbols are appropriate when you want to enhance readability without littering code with literal strings.
postal_code[:minnesota] = "MN"
postal_code[:new_york] = "NY"
Constants are appropriate when you have an underlying value that is important. Just declare a module to hold your constants and then declare the constants within that.
module Foo
BAR = 1
BAZ = 2
BIZ = 4
end
flags = Foo::BAR | Foo::BAZ # flags = 3
Added 2021-01-17
If you are passing the enum value around (for example, storing it in a database) and you need to be able to translate the value back into the symbol, there's a mashup of both approaches
COMMODITY_TYPE = {
currency: 1,
investment: 2,
}
def commodity_type_string(value)
COMMODITY_TYPE.key(value)
end
COMMODITY_TYPE[:currency]
This approach inspired by andrew-grimm's answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/5332950/13468
I'd also recommend reading through the rest of the answers here since there are a lot of ways to solve this and it really boils down to what it is about the other language's enum that you care about

- 6,567
- 1
- 32
- 41
-
2What if these enum is too be stored to the database? Will symbol notation works? I doubt... – Phương Nguyễn Jun 11 '10 at 03:44
-
I would use the constants approach if I were saving to a database. Of course then you have to do some sort of lookup when pulling the data back out of the DB. You could also use something like `:minnesota.to_s` when saving to a database to save the string version of the symbol. Rails, I believe, has some helper methods to deal with some of this. – mlibby Jun 11 '10 at 12:40
-
@dfrankow, what do you mean? I've never heard of order as a concern in the context of C# enums. – mlibby Feb 21 '12 at 14:09
-
Don't know about C#, but Java enums have order, and it is used: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/enums.html. "Note that each enum type has a static values method that returns an array containing all of the values of the enum type in the order they are declared. This method is commonly used in combination with the for-each loop to iterate over the values of an enumerated type." – dfrankow Feb 21 '12 at 14:11
-
@drankow, ah. For that to be automatic you would need to look at something like http://www.rubyfleebie.com/enumerations-and-ruby/ or http://code.dblock.org/how-to-define-enums-in-ruby which support this behavior. Otherwise, if you use the constants approach, you can define a method like `Foo.values` that returns the constants as an array. – mlibby Feb 21 '12 at 14:21
-
8Wouldn't a module be better to group constants - as you're not going to be making any instances of it? – thomthom Mar 14 '12 at 13:37
-
@thomthom absolutely, yes. I've changed the answer. If there is no close coupling of the enums to the context of a class where it would make sense to declare them, then a module makes more sense. – mlibby Mar 23 '12 at 12:51
-
1As well, the module would be faster, as the other one has a hash lookup. Small hash, sure, but still. – baash05 Jul 06 '12 at 00:04
-
3Just a comment. Ruby's a bit of a pain about naming conventions but not really obvious about them until you trip over them. The names of the enums must be all caps and the first letter of the module name must be capitalized for ruby to know that the module is a module of constants. – Rokujolady Apr 08 '13 at 18:41
-
5Not entirely true. The first letter of the constant must be capitalized, but not all letters need to be. This is a matter of convention preference. For example, all module names and class names are actually constants too. – Michael Brown Mar 10 '14 at 23:02
-
What if I want to do a type check as these are just constants? – Gayan Weerakutti Apr 20 '18 at 13:20
I'm surprised that no one has offered something like the following (harvested from the RAPI gem):
class Enum
private
def self.enum_attr(name, num)
name = name.to_s
define_method(name + '?') do
@attrs & num != 0
end
define_method(name + '=') do |set|
if set
@attrs |= num
else
@attrs &= ~num
end
end
end
public
def initialize(attrs = 0)
@attrs = attrs
end
def to_i
@attrs
end
end
Which can be used like so:
class FileAttributes < Enum
enum_attr :readonly, 0x0001
enum_attr :hidden, 0x0002
enum_attr :system, 0x0004
enum_attr :directory, 0x0010
enum_attr :archive, 0x0020
enum_attr :in_rom, 0x0040
enum_attr :normal, 0x0080
enum_attr :temporary, 0x0100
enum_attr :sparse, 0x0200
enum_attr :reparse_point, 0x0400
enum_attr :compressed, 0x0800
enum_attr :rom_module, 0x2000
end
Example:
>> example = FileAttributes.new(3)
=> #<FileAttributes:0x629d90 @attrs=3>
>> example.readonly?
=> true
>> example.hidden?
=> true
>> example.system?
=> false
>> example.system = true
=> true
>> example.system?
=> true
>> example.to_i
=> 7
This plays well in database scenarios, or when dealing with C style constants/enums (as is the case when using FFI, which RAPI makes extensive use of).
Also, you don't have to worry about typos causing silent failures, as you would with using a hash-type solution.

- 6,199
- 6
- 50
- 66
-
1That's a great way to solve that particular problem, but the reason no one suggested it probably has to do with the fact that it's not much like C#/Java enums. – mlibby Feb 17 '12 at 14:21
-
1This is a bit incomplete, but serves as nice hint as to how you might implement solutions with a dynamic approach. It bears some resemblance to a C# enum with the FlagsAttribute set, but like the symbol/constant based solutions above, it's one answer of many. The problem is the original question, which is muddled in its intent (C# and Java aren't interchangeable). There are many ways to itemize objects in Ruby; selecting the right one depends on the problem being solved. Slavishly replicating features you don't need is misguided. The correct answer has to depend on the context. – user1164178 Feb 14 '15 at 06:46
-
One problem with this design, if I'm understanding it correctly, is that unlike something like C#, your solution requires a heap allocation every time you want to use an enum. That means garbage collection and reduced read times one cache misses. I like the way it works and how it looks when defining an enum, but I can't accept unnecessary heap allocations in many scenarios. – Greg Cobb Sep 30 '22 at 09:27
I use the following approach:
class MyClass
MY_ENUM = [MY_VALUE_1 = 'value1', MY_VALUE_2 = 'value2']
end
I like it for the following advantages:
- It groups values visually as one whole
- It does some compilation-time checking (in contrast with just using symbols)
- I can easily access the list of all possible values: just
MY_ENUM
- I can easily access distinct values:
MY_VALUE_1
- It can have values of any type, not just Symbol
Symbols may be better cause you don't have to write the name of outer class, if you are using it in another class (MyClass::MY_VALUE_1
)

- 9,197
- 5
- 64
- 76
-
7I think this is the best answer. The functionality, syntax and minimal code overhead come closest to Java/C#. Also you can nest the definitions even deeper than one level and still recover all values with MyClass::MY_ENUM.flatten. As a side note I would use uppercased names here as is the standard for constants in Ruby. MyClass::MyEnum might be mistaken for a reference to a subclass. – jaynetics Apr 29 '15 at 12:10
-
-
2I'm still a little confused, and the link 410'd (no, not 404). Could you give examples as to how this enum would be used? – Shelvacu Oct 21 '15 at 17:18
The most idiomatic way to do this is to use symbols. For example, instead of:
enum {
FOO,
BAR,
BAZ
}
myFunc(FOO);
...you can just use symbols:
# You don't actually need to declare these, of course--this is
# just to show you what symbols look like.
:foo
:bar
:baz
my_func(:foo)
This is a bit more open-ended than enums, but it fits well with the Ruby spirit.
Symbols also perform very well. Comparing two symbols for equality, for example, is much faster than comparing two strings.

- 60,150
- 6
- 45
- 50
-
124
-
92Popular Ruby frameworks rely heavily on runtime metaprogramming, and performing too much load-time checking would take away most of Ruby's expressive power. To avoid problems, most Ruby programmers practice test-driven design, which will find not just typos but also logic errors. – emk Aug 20 '09 at 20:14
-
1@emk, thanks for your comment, it really sums up the dynamic-lang crowd's thought on the thing. While I do think it's wrong, that's how it works :) – Dan Rosenstark Mar 05 '10 at 14:09
-
11@yar: Well, language design is a series of tradeoffs, and language features interact. If you want a good, highly-dynamic language, go with Ruby, write your unit tests first, and go with the spirit of the language. :-) If that's not what you're looking for, there are dozens of other excellent languages out there, each of which makes different tradeoffs. – emk Mar 10 '10 at 17:51
-
10@emk, I agree, but my personal issue is that I feel quite comfortable in Ruby, but I do not feel comfortable refactoring in Ruby. And now that I've started writing unit tests (finally), I realize that they are not a panacea: my guess is 1) that Ruby code doesn't get massively refactored that often, in practice and 2) Ruby is not the end-of-the-line in terms of dynamic languages, precisely because it's hard to refactor automatically. See my question 2317579 which got taken over, strangely, by the Smalltalk folks. – Dan Rosenstark Mar 10 '10 at 23:52
-
2@Max, the way Ruby works, what appears to be a typo at compile time may not be a typo at run time. Using symbols in Ruby is merely an idiomatic and performant way to do this. In a language like C, enums are really the only way to solve this problem. But in C# I see lots of people using strings to solve the "named index" problem rather than taking the time to build an enum. Strings have the same "typos will compile" problems as Ruby's symbols *and* confounds the IDE's autocomplete functionality. – mlibby Mar 28 '10 at 11:20
-
4Yeah, but using those strings would not be in the spirit of the C# language, it is simply a bad practice. – Ed S. Apr 04 '10 at 00:11
-
2@yar: For Ruby (and similar languages) to be truly usable and refactorable, you really do need excellent test coverage. The easiest way to do this is to never add a feature except to fix a failing test case. This will give near-complete coverage, and it completely transforms the experience of working in a dynamic language. And yes, I've done some pretty serious refactorings of Ruby code. They're a bit harder than Eclipse refactorings, but there's usually far fewer lines of code, so it balances out. – emk Apr 07 '10 at 14:18
-
4@emk, thanks for that: so basically you're replacing compile-time type checks with test-time human-written test code. Except for the fact that the latter is much more comprehensive, it doesn't sound like a very good tradeoff (more work). But I'll let you know what I think after a few months of Ruby with tests. – Dan Rosenstark Apr 08 '10 at 08:01
-
2@yar, no problem! But even working in static languages, I tend to prefer very comprehensive test suites, because I design my APIs working from the test suites inwards to the actual implementation. So for people who've adopted this style, Ruby is literally no extra work—and we get some cool dynamic features, too. (There are some exceptions to this in my experience, particularly higher-order mathematical code in Haskell, where types _and_ tests are invaluable.) Good luck with Ruby! – emk Apr 10 '10 at 12:32
-
@MaxHowell Actually there is no compilation, it just would be evaluated and there is nothing wrong with that. – Jahan Zinedine Oct 17 '12 at 09:04
-
2Well, since ruby doesn't compile, I think the ruby way is "Convention over Configuration" which means "We hardcode stuff and you guess what what we hardcoded." – Rokujolady Apr 08 '13 at 18:43
If you are using Rails 4.2 or greater you can use Rails enums.
Rails now has enums by default without the need for including any gems.
This is very similar (and more with features) to Java, C++ enums.
Quoted from http://edgeapi.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Enum.html :
class Conversation < ActiveRecord::Base
enum status: [ :active, :archived ]
end
# conversation.update! status: 0
conversation.active!
conversation.active? # => true
conversation.status # => "active"
# conversation.update! status: 1
conversation.archived!
conversation.archived? # => true
conversation.status # => "archived"
# conversation.update! status: 1
conversation.status = "archived"
# conversation.update! status: nil
conversation.status = nil
conversation.status.nil? # => true
conversation.status # => nil

- 18,146
- 4
- 66
- 89
-
8As you said - not useful if the OP is not using Rails (or more accurately the object is not of type ActiveRecord). Just explaining my downvote is all. – Gerard Dec 08 '15 at 20:25
-
4These are not enums in Ruby, it is an ActiveRecord interface to Enums in your database. Not a generalizable solution that can be applied in any other use-case. – Adam Lassek May 09 '16 at 06:08
-
1
-
1
-
1I don't like it because it must be stored in a Rails database (to work) and because it allows to create many instances of the `Conversation` class - I believe it must allow only 1 instance. – prograils Jun 29 '17 at 09:42
This is my approach to enums in Ruby. I was going for short and sweet, not necessarily the the most C-like. Any thoughts?
module Kernel
def enum(values)
Module.new do |mod|
values.each_with_index{ |v,i| mod.const_set(v.to_s.capitalize, 2**i) }
def mod.inspect
"#{self.name} {#{self.constants.join(', ')}}"
end
end
end
end
States = enum %w(Draft Published Trashed)
=> States {Draft, Published, Trashed}
States::Draft
=> 1
States::Published
=> 2
States::Trashed
=> 4
States::Draft | States::Trashed
=> 5
I know it's been a long time since the guy posted this question, but I had the same question and this post didn't give me the answer. I wanted an easy way to see what the number represents, easy comparison, and most of all ActiveRecord support for lookup using the column representing the enum.
I didn't find anything, so I made an awesome implementation called yinum which allowed everything I was looking for. Made ton of specs, so I'm pretty sure it's safe.
Some example features:
COLORS = Enum.new(:COLORS, :red => 1, :green => 2, :blue => 3)
=> COLORS(:red => 1, :green => 2, :blue => 3)
COLORS.red == 1 && COLORS.red == :red
=> true
class Car < ActiveRecord::Base
attr_enum :color, :COLORS, :red => 1, :black => 2
end
car = Car.new
car.color = :red / "red" / 1 / "1"
car.color
=> Car::COLORS.red
car.color.black?
=> false
Car.red.to_sql
=> "SELECT `cars`.* FROM `cars` WHERE `cars`.`color` = 1"
Car.last.red?
=> true

- 2,557
- 2
- 22
- 20
Check out the ruby-enum gem, https://github.com/dblock/ruby-enum.
class Gender
include Enum
Gender.define :MALE, "male"
Gender.define :FEMALE, "female"
end
Gender.all
Gender::MALE

- 4,700
- 2
- 46
- 51
Perhaps the best lightweight approach would be
module MyConstants
ABC = Class.new
DEF = Class.new
GHI = Class.new
end
This way values have associated names, as in Java/C#:
MyConstants::ABC
=> MyConstants::ABC
To get all values, you can do
MyConstants.constants
=> [:ABC, :DEF, :GHI]
If you want an enum's ordinal value, you can do
MyConstants.constants.index :GHI
=> 2

- 7,796
- 1
- 37
- 56
-
1IMHO this very closely replicates the use and purpose (type safety) from Java, also, as a matter of preference, constants can be defined like this: `class ABC; end` – wik Dec 21 '19 at 16:12
If you're worried about typos with symbols, make sure your code raises an exception when you access a value with a non-existent key. You can do this by using fetch
rather than []
:
my_value = my_hash.fetch(:key)
or by making the hash raise an exception by default if you supply a non-existent key:
my_hash = Hash.new do |hash, key|
raise "You tried to access using #{key.inspect} when the only keys we have are #{hash.keys.inspect}"
end
If the hash already exists, you can add on exception-raising behaviour:
my_hash = Hash[[[1,2]]]
my_hash.default_proc = proc do |hash, key|
raise "You tried to access using #{key.inspect} when the only keys we have are #{hash.keys.inspect}"
end
Normally, you don't have to worry about typo safety with constants. If you misspell a constant name, it'll usually raise an exception.

- 78,473
- 57
- 200
- 338
-
It seems you're advocating emulating enums with **hashes**, without saying so explicitly. It might be a good idea to edit your answer to say so. (I also currently have a need for something like enums in Ruby, and my first approach to solving it is by using hashes: `FOO_VALUES = {missing: 0, something: 1, something_else: 2, ...}`. This defines the key symbols `missing`, `something`, etc., and also makes them comparable via the associated values.) – Teemu Leisti Sep 10 '13 at 09:06
-
Another solution is using OpenStruct. Its pretty straight forward and clean.
https://ruby-doc.org/stdlib-2.3.1/libdoc/ostruct/rdoc/OpenStruct.html
Example:
# bar.rb
require 'ostruct' # not needed when using Rails
# by patching Array you have a simple way of creating a ENUM-style
class Array
def to_enum(base=0)
OpenStruct.new(map.with_index(base).to_h)
end
end
class Bar
MY_ENUM = OpenStruct.new(ONE: 1, TWO: 2, THREE: 3)
MY_ENUM2 = %w[ONE TWO THREE].to_enum
def use_enum (value)
case value
when MY_ENUM.ONE
puts "Hello, this is ENUM 1"
when MY_ENUM.TWO
puts "Hello, this is ENUM 2"
when MY_ENUM.THREE
puts "Hello, this is ENUM 3"
else
puts "#{value} not found in ENUM"
end
end
end
# usage
foo = Bar.new
foo.use_enum 1
foo.use_enum 2
foo.use_enum 9
# put this code in a file 'bar.rb', start IRB and type: load 'bar.rb'

- 7,535
- 5
- 41
- 63
Someone went ahead and wrote a ruby gem called Renum. It claims to get the closest Java/C# like behavior. Personally I'm still learning Ruby, and I was a little shocked when I wanted to make a specific class contain a static enum, possibly a hash, that it wasn't exactly easily found via google.

- 43,965
- 20
- 101
- 140
-
I have never needed an enum in Ruby. Symbols and constants are idiomatic and solve the same problems, don't they? – Chuck Mar 04 '09 at 20:53
-
Probably Chuck; but googling for an enum in ruby won't get you that far. It will show you results for people's best attempt at a direct equivalent. Which makes me wonder, maybe there's something nice about having the concept wrapped together. – dlamblin Mar 05 '09 at 01:33
-
@Chuck Symbols and constants don't enforce, e.g., that a value has to be one of a small set of values. – David Moles Mar 20 '15 at 21:44
It all depends how you use Java or C# enums. How you use it will dictate the solution you'll choose in Ruby.
Try the native Set
type, for instance:
>> enum = Set['a', 'b', 'c']
=> #<Set: {"a", "b", "c"}>
>> enum.member? "b"
=> true
>> enum.member? "d"
=> false
>> enum.add? "b"
=> nil
>> enum.add? "d"
=> #<Set: {"a", "b", "c", "d"}>

- 14,919
- 8
- 47
- 63
module Status
BAD = 13
GOOD = 24
def self.to_str(status)
for sym in self.constants
if self.const_get(sym) == status
return sym.to_s
end
end
end
end
mystatus = Status::GOOD
puts Status::to_str(mystatus)
Output:
GOOD

- 390
- 7
- 14
This seems a bit superfluous, but this is a methodology that I have used a few times, especially where I am integrating with xml or some such.
#model
class Profession
def self.pro_enum
{:BAKER => 0,
:MANAGER => 1,
:FIREMAN => 2,
:DEV => 3,
:VAL => ["BAKER", "MANAGER", "FIREMAN", "DEV"]
}
end
end
Profession.pro_enum[:DEV] #=>3
Profession.pro_enum[:VAL][1] #=>MANAGER
This gives me the rigor of a c# enum and it is tied to the model.
-
I wouldn't advise this approach because it relies on you manually setting the values and ensuring you get the order right in `:VAL`. It would be better to start with an array and construct the hash using `.map.with_index` – DaveMongoose Sep 19 '19 at 15:25
-
1The exact point is tying yourself to a value that is dictated by third parties. It's not about extensibility per se, but about having to deal with extraneous constraints that impact computability within your process boundaries. – jjk Sep 19 '19 at 16:15
-
1Fair point! In that case it definitely makes sense to specify the values, but I'd be inclined to do the reverse lookup with `.key` or `.invert` rather than a `:VAL` key ( https://stackoverflow.com/a/10989394/2208016 ) – DaveMongoose Sep 23 '19 at 13:23
-
Yeah, that is (back at you) a fair point. My ruby was inelegant and unwieldy. Would def use `key` or `invert` – jjk Nov 14 '19 at 15:38
Symbols is the ruby way. However, sometimes one need to talk to some C code or something or Java that expose some enum for various things.
#server_roles.rb
module EnumLike
def EnumLike.server_role
server_Symb=[ :SERVER_CLOUD, :SERVER_DESKTOP, :SERVER_WORKSTATION]
server_Enum=Hash.new
i=0
server_Symb.each{ |e| server_Enum[e]=i; i +=1}
return server_Symb,server_Enum
end
end
This can then be used like this
require 'server_roles'
sSymb, sEnum =EnumLike.server_role()
foreignvec[sEnum[:SERVER_WORKSTATION]]=8
This is can of course be made abstract and you can roll our own Enum class

- 6,525
- 2
- 25
- 40
-
Are you capitalizing the second word in variables (eg `server_Symb`) for a particular reason? Unless there's a particular reason, it's idiomatic for variables to be `snake_case_with_all_lower_case`, and for symbols to be `:lower_case`. – Andrew Grimm Mar 16 '11 at 23:03
-
1@Andrew; this example were taken from a real world thing and the network protocol documentation used xxx_Yyy, so the code in several languages used the same concept so one could follow changes of specification. – Jonke Mar 17 '11 at 19:55
-
1Code golfing: `server_Symb.each_with_index { |e,i| server_Enum[e] = i}`. No need for `i = 0`. – Andrew Grimm Mar 17 '11 at 21:48
I have implemented enums like that
module EnumType
def self.find_by_id id
if id.instance_of? String
id = id.to_i
end
values.each do |type|
if id == type.id
return type
end
end
nil
end
def self.values
[@ENUM_1, @ENUM_2]
end
class Enum
attr_reader :id, :label
def initialize id, label
@id = id
@label = label
end
end
@ENUM_1 = Enum.new(1, "first")
@ENUM_2 = Enum.new(2, "second")
end
then its easy to do operations
EnumType.ENUM_1.label
...
enum = EnumType.find_by_id 1
...
valueArray = EnumType.values

- 21
- 1
Sometimes all I need is to be able to fetch enum's value and identify its name similar to java world.
module Enum
def get_value(str)
const_get(str)
end
def get_name(sym)
sym.to_s.upcase
end
end
class Fruits
include Enum
APPLE = "Delicious"
MANGO = "Sweet"
end
Fruits.get_value('APPLE') #'Delicious'
Fruits.get_value('MANGO') # 'Sweet'
Fruits.get_name(:apple) # 'APPLE'
Fruits.get_name(:mango) # 'MANGO'
This to me serves the purpose of enum and keeps it very extensible too. You can add more methods to the Enum class and viola get them for free in all the defined enums. for example. get_all_names and stuff like that.

- 486
- 5
- 11
Try the inum. https://github.com/alfa-jpn/inum
class Color < Inum::Base
define :RED
define :GREEN
define :BLUE
end
Color::RED
Color.parse('blue') # => Color::BLUE
Color.parse(2) # => Color::GREEN

- 11
- 1
Most people use symbols (that's the :foo_bar
syntax). They're sort of unique opaque values. Symbols don't belong to any enum-style type so they're not really a faithful representation of C's enum type but this is pretty much as good as it gets.

- 17,870
- 3
- 59
- 51
Another way to mimic an enum with consistent equality handling (shamelessly adopted from Dave Thomas). Allows open enums (much like symbols) and closed (predefined) enums.
class Enum
def self.new(values = nil)
enum = Class.new do
unless values
def self.const_missing(name)
const_set(name, new(name))
end
end
def initialize(name)
@enum_name = name
end
def to_s
"#{self.class}::#@enum_name"
end
end
if values
enum.instance_eval do
values.each { |e| const_set(e, enum.new(e)) }
end
end
enum
end
end
Genre = Enum.new %w(Gothic Metal) # creates closed enum
Architecture = Enum.new # creates open enum
Genre::Gothic == Genre::Gothic # => true
Genre::Gothic != Architecture::Gothic # => true

- 172
- 1
- 8
Another approach is to use a Ruby class with a hash containing names and values as described in the following RubyFleebie blog post. This allows you to convert easily between values and constants (especially if you add a class method to lookup the name for a given value).

- 1,152
- 1
- 9
- 13
I think the best way to implement enumeration like types is with symbols since the pretty much behave as integer (when it comes to performace, object_id is used to make comparisons ); you don't need to worry about indexing and they look really neat in your code xD

- 302
- 2
- 9
irb(main):016:0> num=[1,2,3,4]
irb(main):017:0> alph=['a','b','c','d']
irb(main):018:0> l_enum=alph.to_enum
irb(main):019:0> s_enum=num.to_enum
irb(main):020:0> loop do
irb(main):021:1* puts "#{s_enum.next} - #{l_enum.next}"
irb(main):022:1> end
Output:
1 - a
2 - b
3 - c
4 - d

- 118,113
- 30
- 216
- 245

- 9
- 1
-
`to_enum` gives you an enumera _tor_ , whereas `enum` in the C#/Java sense is an enumera _tion_ – DaveMongoose Sep 19 '19 at 15:29