From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2008-01-31T00:12:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Proposal/RFQ: Hash#values/keys with block

2008/1/30, Dirk Traulsen <dirk.traulsen@lypso.de>:
> Am 30 Jan 2008 um 4:20 hat Robert Klemme geschrieben:
> > I am not sure I agree here.  If you take #each or #select, these do
> > not make any sense without a block so the block is certainly not fine
> > tuning the method.  What examples do you have in mind?
>
> Below I put a few examples. I'm sure if I would really dive into the
> standard lib, there might be better ones, but these came to my mind.

Nice list.  Yes, indeed, I see what you mean.

> > My soft point here is, that it somehow feels odd to combine two
> > completely orthogonal things (key extraction and entry selection) in a
> > single method to me.
>
> It does not feel orthogonal for me. This is a combination, true, but I
> would not call it orthogonal.

Why not?  IMHO the term fits well concepts involved:

"The term is used loosely to mean mutually independent or well separated."

"Mutually independent; well separated;"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=orthogonal

> In real life most tasks are combinatory.

Yeah, but in software engineering the cost of combining different
tasks us decreased modularity.  I do not say that it should not be
done - often there are good reasons, but I have seen more often than
not things lumped together despite the lack of good reasons.

> > > Robert, don't you think it would fit nicely in the standard lib?
> >
> > I would not say that it does not fit but I am not totally convinced.
> > I am trying to employ public debate to find out the best solution.
> > :-)
>
> Well, it seems it is more of a private debate.

Right you are.

> I'm a little
> disappointed by this lack of interest. Do you think I should have
> posted it to ruby-core?

No, I think the place is perfectly ok because although we are talking
about a core lib change motivation for it is usage.  So first those
who would be using the new idiom should have their say IMHO.

<digression>There was a time when we had more people chiming into
discussions like this.  Maybe people turned away because they found
the content of the list has changed in a way that it makes the list
less valuable or interesting for them.  Or they have a hard time
finding those gems under a pile of other threads.</digression>

> > Dirk, I am glad that once again there is an interesting discussion.
> > Thanks for that!
>
> Thanks a lot for your comments.

You're welcome!

Kind regards

robert

-- 
use.inject do |as, often| as.you_can - without end