From: zverok.offline@... Date: 2018-12-17T22:00:57+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:90592] [Ruby trunk Misc#15428] Proc composition: what can quack like Proc? Issue #15428 has been updated by zverok (Victor Shepelev). BTW, having `>>` and `<<` convert objects via `to_proc` would have a nice (?) addition of chaining symbols too: ```ruby PROCESS = ->(url) { get(url) } >> JSON.method(:parse) >> :symbolize_keys >> :invert ``` ---------------------------------------- Misc #15428: Proc composition: what can quack like Proc? https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15428#change-75745 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ---------------------------------------- I believe, that solution of #6284 introduced important language inconsistency: as far as I can tell, it insists that **anything that responds to `#call`** is composable, e.g. **quacks like `Proc`**. The problem is, previously it was **never** this way. `#call` method has a nice shortcut of `.()`, but when you wanted to tell something can quack like proc, it **always** was done by defining `#to_proc` method. I understand it could be too late to ask, but I wonder why this inconsistency was introduced and is there a plan to take this step further? For me personally, this `#call`/`#to_proc` dichotomy was always weird and feels like it needs some unification (maybe anything having `#call` will automatically have `#to_proc` method?), but the situation when exactly one language feature treats it differently looks pretty weird for me. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: