[ruby-talk:11152] Re: RCR's

> From: Mathieu Bouchard [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Robert Feldt wrote:
> > class Proc
> >   def *(other)
> >     raise unless arity == other.arity
> >     proc {|*a| self.call(other.call(*a))}
> >   end
> > end
> 
> wouldn't that be "raise unless arity == 1" ?
Actually you are both wrong (the prototypical left/right 
confusion I never get straight;-) - the ``argument arity'' 
and the ``arity of the return type'' need to match but the 
ladder is always -1 that is one element. 

Morally this is false because this one element (object) is often
an array or more generally an object of a collection class
and it is tempting to use argument separation to compose more
general functions. The basic example is
class Proc
def *(other)
    lambda { |a|  l, *r = other.call(a); self.call(l,*r)}
end
end
The trouble is that the ``return signature'' is not an invariant
for Ruby function and it is not worth the trouble to implement
composition with general argument separation IMO.

I like (the restricted form) of Roberts function composition
proposal but it needs to be supported in the core language
IMO - here is a partial solution (note the arity semantics
recently changed if I remember correctly).

class Proc
def *(other)
  raise 'whatever' unless arity ==  -1
    case other.arity
      when 0  
       lambda {||  self.call(other.call)  }
      when -1
       lambda {|a|  self.call(other.call(a))  }
      when 2
       lambda {|a,b|  self.call(other.call(a,b))  } 
      when -2 
       lambda {|a,*b|  self.call(other.call(a,*b))  } 
      else
       raise 'not implemented'
    end
end
end

# varying return signature
# note the ``return arity'' is always -1 
def aa(n)
  return n    if n < 5 
  return  4,n          
end                   
                    
a = lambda { |x| aa(x) }
b = lambda { |x|  x[0]+ x[1] }

p a.arity
p b.arity
c = b * a

p c.arity
p c.call(5) # => 9
p c.call(4) # => 0 - don't know why
            # should raise an exception
[...]

I also wanted to point out that the other functional
programming idea - i.e. ``suspend'' - cannot be 
implemented with Progs IMO.

Christoph