From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2009-06-16T15:10:11+09:00
Subject: Re: each by arity

On 15.06.2009 20:17, Yossef Mendelssohn wrote:
> [Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]
> 
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:22 PM, trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Slice by arity seems pretty clear to me. Moreover, where is
>> #map_slice? It starts to look a lot clearer when we think of adding
>> "_slice" to every Enumerable method.
> 
> Why is map_slice needed? What's the problem with calling each_slice and then
> map on the result? Is it a case of optimization? Are you worried about the
> resources you'll be using? If so, it's quite possible to use each_slice to
> iterate over one collection while appending results to an array. But maybe
> it's not functional enough for you. Or core enough.
> 
> Go ahead and call out the Enumerator now.
> 
> I have no trouble with requiring 'enumerator' and explicitly using exactly
> the methods I want. I'd rather be clear than clever.

Question is whether it is clever to duplicate all methods with another 
one that has "_slice" appended to the name.  I personally favor the 
approach with Enumerator, e.g. depending on version

enum.enum_for(:each_slice, 2).map {|a,b| ...}
enum.each_slice(2).map {|a,b| ...}

- especially since it works as easy for #each_cons and others.  In other 
words: this is much more modular.

Kind regards

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/