[#35631] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4558][Open] TestSocket#test_closed_read fails after r31230 — Tomoyuki Chikanaga <redmine@...>

23 messages 2011/04/06

[#35632] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4559][Open] Proc#== does not match the documented behaviour — Adam Prescott <redmine@...>

13 messages 2011/04/06

[#35637] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4561][Open] 1.9.2 requires parentheses around argument of method call in an array, where 1.8.7 did not — Dave Schweisguth <redmine@...>

9 messages 2011/04/07

[#35666] caching of the ancestor chain — Xavier Noria <fxn@...>

Why does Ruby cache the ancestors chain? I mean, not why the implementation implies that, but why it works that way conceptually.

9 messages 2011/04/09

[#35734] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4574][Open] Numeric#within — redmine@...

16 messages 2011/04/13

[#35753] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576][Open] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — redmine@...

61 messages 2011/04/14
[#39566] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...> 2011/09/15

[#39590] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...> 2011/09/16

[#39593] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2011/09/16

2011/9/17 Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@marc-andre.ca>:

[#39608] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Masahiro TANAKA <masa16.tanaka@...> 2011/09/17

I have not been watching ruby-core, but let me give a comment for this issue.

[#35765] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4579][Open] SecureRandom + OpenSSL may repeat with fork — redmine@...

27 messages 2011/04/15

[#35866] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4603][Open] lib/csv.rb: when the :encoding parameter is not provided, the encoding of CSV data is treated as ASCII-8BIT — yu nobuoka <nobuoka@...>

13 messages 2011/04/24

[#35879] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4610][Open] Proc#curry behavior is inconsistent with lambdas containing default argument values — Joshua Ballanco <jballanc@...>

11 messages 2011/04/25

[#35883] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4611][Open] [BUG] Segementation fault reported — Deryl Doucette <me@...>

15 messages 2011/04/25

[#35895] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4614][Open] [RFC/PATCH] thread_pthread.c: lower RUBY_STACK_MIN_LIMIT to 64K — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>

10 messages 2011/04/25

[ruby-core:35892] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4610] Proc#curry behavior is inconsistent with lambdas containing default argument values

From: Joshua Ballanco <jballanc@...>
Date: 2011-04-25 20:00:47 UTC
List: ruby-core #35892
Issue #4610 has been updated by Joshua Ballanco.


Ok, making this a feature request for 2.0 sounds like a good idea.

Regarding the consistency argument, as I understand Currying (or at least the way that it is implemented in most other languages), the result of a Proc#curry call should be a chain of Proc's with arity 1 that return Proc's with arity 1 until all arguments have been satisfied. It would be nice if Ruby behaved similarly.

For example, in OCaml (which auto-curries functions):

 # let foo a b c =
 print_endline (String.concat ", " [a; b; c])
 ;;
 val foo : string -> string -> string -> unit = <fun>
 # foo "first" ;;
 - : string -> string -> unit = <fun>
 # foo "first" "second" ;;
 - : string -> unit = <fun>
 # foo "first" "second" "third" ;;
 first, second, third
 - : unit = ()
 
----------------------------------------
Feature #4610: Proc#curry behavior is inconsistent with lambdas containing default argument values
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4610

Author: Joshua Ballanco
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: 
Category: 
Target version: 2.0


If I curry a lambda with 3 arguments, then I can call three times with one argument each time to get the desired results:

ruby-1.9.2-p180 :001 > l = ->(a, b, c) { puts "#{a}, #{b}, #{c}" }
#<Proc:0x00000100963650@(irb):1 (lambda)>
ruby-1.9.2-p180 :002 > c = l.curry
#<Proc:0x0000010095c9e0 (lambda)>
ruby-1.9.2-p180 :003 > c.('one').('two').('three')
one, two, three
nil

However, if the lambda has default values and I curry it, the entire lambda is evaluated after the first #call:


ruby-1.9.2-p180 :004 > l = ->(a = 'ichi', b = 'ni', c = 'san') { puts "#{a}, #{b}, #{c}" }
#<Proc:0x00000100877b88@(irb):4 (lambda)>
ruby-1.9.2-p180 :005 > c = l.curry
#<Proc:0x0000010086b338 (lambda)>
ruby-1.9.2-p180 :006 > c.('one').('two').('three')
one, ni, san
NoMethodError: undefined method `call' for nil:NilClass

This behavior seem very inconsistent. Ideally, if I wanted to use the default argument at a certain position in a currie proc, I would just #call with no arguments, like so:

ruby-1.9.2-p180 :007 > c.('one').().('three')
#=> Propose that this result in: "one, ni, three"


-- 
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org

In This Thread