From: Pit Capitain <pit@...>
Date: 2001-11-01T05:17:21+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:24029] Re: RCR #50 Simplifying the use of map by adding optional parameter

Hi Robert,

Matz is right, it's been too early for me. I'm still reading my way 
through more than 400 Ruby mails, and I don't want to miss one, 
so it took me longer to reply to your RCR.

I often wanted the sugar you requested, too. On rubygarden I 
proposed a slightly different syntax though.

Another construct I often come up with are short methods that only 
do one thing (like for example traversing a collection), delegating 
the remaining work to other methods of the same class, like in

  def process_files( *filenames )
    # traverse filenames
    filenames.each( &method( :process_file ) )
  end

  def process_file( filename )
    # redirect $stdin
    with_redirected_stdin( filename, &method( :process_stdin ) )
  end

  def process_stdin
    # read $stdin
    process_lines( $stdin.readlines )
  end

and so on.

So I often wanted to get rid of the "method()" call and instead write 
something like &:name, which would pass the named method as a 
block parameter.

But this collides with the syntax I proposed for your RCR, and I 
would rather like the RCR being approved.

Regards,
Pit

On 27 Oct 2001, at 12:27, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In message "[ruby-talk:23556] Re: RCR #50 Simplifying the use of map
> by adding optional parameter"
>     on 01/10/27, Robert Feldt <feldt@ce.chalmers.se> writes:
> 
> |I thought more people felt like this but apparently not. Must be my
> |Haskell heritage.
> 
> It's too early to say "apparently not".  I'd like to hear from others
> too.
> 
>        matz.