From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2007-08-29T07:07:18+09:00
Subject: Re: More convenient #p?



On Aug 28, 10:55 am, Yossef Mendelssohn <ymen...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 11:34 am, "Wolfgang N�dasi-Donner" <ed.oda...@wonado.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Trans wrote:
> > > Has anyone else every wished #p would passthru it's argument? Ie. Work
> > > like this:
>
> > >   def p(x)
> > >     puts x.inspect
> > >     x
> > >   end
>
> > > Is there any good reason that it shouldn't? I noticed this was in
> > > Ruby's source code TODO list once, but it never came to pass for some
> > > reason.
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > T.
>
> > I prefer the following modification, because it makes it easy to be a
> > voyeur in method chains.
>
> > irb(main):001:0> module Kernel
> > irb(main):002:1>   def my_p
> > irb(main):003:2>     p self
> > irb(main):004:2>     self
> > irb(main):005:2>   end
> > irb(main):006:1> end
> > => nil
> > irb(main):007:0> %w{a b c d}.my_p.collect{|i|'<'+i+'>'}.my_p.reverse
> > ["a", "b", "c", "d"]
> > ["<a>", "<b>", "<c>", "<d>"]
> > => ["<d>", "<c>", "<b>", "<a>"]
>
> > Wolfgang N�dasi-Donner
> > --
> > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
> Call me crazy, but isn't this thread really about how great it would
> be to use Object#tap?
>
> http://moonbase.rydia.net/mental/blog/programming/eavesdropping-on-ex...

Similar idea. But #p is for debugging. Who would want to go through
all the trouble of ".tap{ p ... }." when "p ..." will do?

T.