From: Kevin Ballard <kballard@...>
Date: 2005-10-20T22:46:59+09:00
Subject: Re: Unit testing an each function

Brian Schr�der wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >   (1..100).reject.even?
> >
> > [snip]
>
> Just wanted to state that on second reading of this thread it again
> did hurt in my eyes. If I read (1.100).reject I expect a resulting
> array. And when I read the above I wondered shortly if even? works on
> arrays maybe returning true if the array has an even number of
> entries. Then I remembered the thread topic and started this text. So
> a
>   -1
> from me for proposing this as an addition to the language.

Except that (1..100).reject doesn't return an array at all unless a
block is supplied - it gives a LocalJumpError. All the enumerating
methods I've tested except for Enumerable#collect give an error when
called without a block (#collect without a block is equivalent to
#to_a). So with this change, the case where no block is supplied
becomes useful as opposed to useless (and in the #collect case, I can't
imagine anybody's actually relying on #collect being equivalent to
#to_a when called without a block, because they should be using #to_a
directly for that).

In any case, I wasn't proposing this as an addition to the language
(not that I would mind), I was simply proposing this as something I
should package up into a gem so people could use it if they wanted.