From: matz@... Date: 2018-10-10T06:29:46+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:89353] [Ruby trunk Feature#14784] One-sided Comparable#clamp Issue #14784 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto). Please don't put multiple proposals in one issue. It's hard for us to tell which is important `clamp` to accept ranges or having one-sided `clamp`. This kind of mixture leads to our confusion that hinders final decision. Matz. ---------------------------------------- Feature #14784: One-sided Comparable#clamp https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14784#change-74384 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Target version: ---------------------------------------- **Proposal** Allow "one-sided" `clamp` to limit only upper bound (and, ideally, only lower too). Proposed implementation: allow `clamp(begin..end)` call sequence (without deprecating `clamp(begin, end)`), to take advantage from open-ended ranges with `clamp(begin..)`. **Reasoning about range** I looked through `#clamp` [discussion](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10594), but couldn't find there why syntax `clamp(b, e)` was preferred to `clamp(b..e)`. The only one I could think of is possible confuse of how `clamp(b..e)` and `clamp(b...e)` behaviors should differ. The problem becomes more important with the introduction of [open-ended ranges](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12912). I believe this is pretty natural: ```ruby some_calculation.clamp(0..) # now, I use clamp(0, Float::INFINITY) timestamp.clamp(Date.today..) # now, I typically use clamp(Date.today..INFINITE_FUTURE_DATE) with custom defined constant ``` Counter-arguments: 1. This is "one-sided", you can't do `clamp(..Date.today)`. To this I can answer than from my experience "clamping only minimum" is more frequent, and if you need to clamp only maximum, most of the time there is some "reasonable minumum". Another idea is that maybe this is a proof why "start-less" ranges are necessary, after all, [doubted here](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12912#note-12) 2. Why not just leave current `clamp(b, e)` and allow `clamp(b)`? Answer: because when you see `clamp(10)`, is it `clamp(10, nil)`, or `clamp(nil, 10)` (yes, logically it is the first argument that is left, but from readability point of view it is not that obvious). Possible alternative: `clamp(min: 0, max: 10)`, where you can omit any of two. 3. Why do you need one-sided clamp at all? Because alternatives is much more wordy, making reader think: ```ruby # with clamp chain.of.calculations.clamp(0..) # without clamp v = chain.of.calculations v < 0 ? 0 : v # or, with yield_self (renamed to then) chain.of.calculations.then { |v| v < 0 ? 0 : v } ``` Both alternatives "without `#clamp`" shows intentions much less clear. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>