From: "headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@...>
Date: 2013-06-24T04:07:18+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:55613] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6373] public #self


Issue #6373 has been updated by headius (Charles Nutter).


Another argument why "tap" is fine...

If tap were defined in a functional style, it would be simply

def tap(obj, &block)
  block.call(obj)
  obj
end

Anywhere you can pass a function you should be able to pass a no-op function, so tap could be defined as

def tap(obj, &block)
  block = proc{} unless block
  block.call(obj)
  obj
end

So defining tap such that it defaults to a no-op function (i.e. does not yield if block not given) seems perfectly valid to me.
----------------------------------------
Feature #6373: public #self
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6373#change-40102

Author: trans (SYSTEM ERROR)
Status: Feedback
Priority: Normal
Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Category: core
Target version: next minor


=begin
This was recently suggested to me as an extension:

  class Object
    # An identity method that provides access to an object's 'self'.
    #
    # Example:
    #   [1,2,3,4,5,1,2,2,3].group_by(&:identity)
    #   #=> {1=>[1, 1], 2=>[2, 2, 2], 3=>[3, 3], 4=>[4], 5=>[5]}
    #
    def identity
      self
    end
  end

First, is such a method commonly useful enough to warrant existence?

Second, it makes me wonder if #self should be a public method in general.
=end


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