has_key? description note is giving false impression

[mentero]

Hi

Currently in a section regarding has_key? vs key? there is a sentence linking to an old email which was used as a rationale for this rule. It is also noted that the has_key? is considered deprecated.

I believe that this note is unnecessary and can give a false impression. has_key? is not considered deprecated and is still actively in use. Matz clearly stated that it is not going anywhere here rubocop/rubocop#3224

This makes me believe that the note about has_key? deprecation in Matz's mail was simply an unfortunately phrased opinion on a personal preference and is not an official statement of a core team.

To back it up this rule started a discussion in my team today and this part of style guide was brought up as an argument while I firmly believe that choosing between has_key? and key? is highly subjective matter and one is arguably better than the other. This is especially true since the rationale behind this rule is no longer valid.

---

Looks like my editor also fixed some trailing whitespaces ;)

[booch]

If they're no longer (and maybe never have been) deprecated, it would seem that the longer versions should be preferred, as they're more clearly intention-revealing.

[bbatsov]

If they're no longer (and maybe never have been) deprecated, it would seem that the longer versions should be preferred, as they're more clearly intention-revealing.

They are still inconsistent with most predicates in the core and standard library.