From: Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...>
Date: 2009-11-13T23:12:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Enumerable#find_yield, useful shortcut? better name?

--0016e6482b5c0340d80478413fd8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

As Aaron,
I prefer the simple built-in method, with what u want to do with the object
after:

obj1.foo? #=> false
obj2.foo? #=> true
obj2.foo  #=> "value"

[obj1, obj2].find_yield { |obj| obj.foo if obj.foo? } #=> "value"

[obj1, obj2].find { |obj| obj.foo? }.foo #=> "value"

Even more concise ...
The only problem I see is if we don't find, we'll call foo on nothing(nil).

So to have the same behavior:
x = [obj1, obj2].find(nil) { |obj| obj.foo? }
x.foo unless foo.nil? #=> "value"

And I think it's quite normal we have to manage with a structure(the if) how
to manage when we didn't find.

But I'm probably missing a special case. Could you give a example in
situation, to see if it is easier to read or not?

If you want to take several objects, you would use [obj1, obj2].select {
|obj| obj.foo? }.map {|e| e.foo}
So the idea of Robert Klemme is accurate, sure.



2009/11/13 Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com>

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Intransition <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This method has long been suggested to me as #map_detect. At first I
> > wasn't sure of it's usefulness. But now I think it's okay. (Your
> > thoughts?). In any case, the name has to go. Currently I'm thinking
> > #find_yield. Any better suggestions?
>
> #where doesn't read too badly
>
> martin
>
>

--0016e6482b5c0340d80478413fd8--