From: Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@...>
Date: 2010-08-03T15:36:47+09:00
Subject: Re: .any?{} Behavior

--000e0cdf9e1471b1ea048ce58a6b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

> Hi --
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Josh Cheek wrote:
>
>  What about redefining all? to accept an optional param for what to do when
>> empty? It doesn't change default behaviour, but lets you get your
>> preferred
>> behaviour out of it. (note this only works on 1.9, because of how procs
>> take
>> params in 1.8)
>>
>>
>> module Enumerable
>>  old_all = instance_method(:all?)
>>  define_method :all? do |emptyval=true,&block|
>>   return emptyval if empty?
>>   old_all.bind(self).call &block
>>  end
>> end
>>
>
> You're working a bit too hard there; you can just do:
>
> module Enumerable
>  alias old_all all?
>  def all?(emptyval=true, &block)
>    return emptyval if empty?
>    old_all(&block)
>  end
> end
>
> with no need for the round trip to the method object and back.
>
> But I think overall it might be even easier just to call empty? :-) I'm
> also not a fan of Boolean arguments. I never remember what they mean.
>
>
>
> David
>
> --
> David A. Black, Senior Developer, Cyrus Innovation Inc.
>
>  The                   Ruby training with Black/Brown/McAnally
>  Compleat              Philadelphia, PA, October 1-2, 2010
>  Rubyist               http://www.compleatrubyist.com
>
>
I did it that way based on the observations at this blog
http://blog.jayfields.com/2006/12/ruby-alias-method-alternative.html but I
guess if you're working by yourself, you will know you did it and not have
collision issues, and if you're working with a team, you would probably not
be redefining Enumerable#all? so alias is probably a much better choice.

--000e0cdf9e1471b1ea048ce58a6b--