From: Peter Vandenabeele <peter@...>
Date: 2012-02-04T02:55:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Help please Undefined Method error

--002354470c5c1fcb0104b81305b3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Bartosz Dziewo=C5=84ski <matma.rex@gmail.co=
m>wrote:

> 2012/2/3 Peter Vandenabeele <peter@vandenabeele.com>:
> > <alternative>
> > def get_words
> >  [].tap do |a|
> >    while !(input =3D gets.chomp).empty?
> >       a << input
> >    end
> >  end
> > end
>
> Aw. Do not abuse #tap, please. It's extremely unreadable, especially
> to a beginner.
>

Thanks for the feedback.

<subjective>
I find it quite readable, because it take the recipient (an empty array
here),
"augments" it, and then just returns it back. At least for me, I love it,
because
otherwise there is always a chance I forget the
(return) <accumulator> as last line of the function.

But, my argument is subjective ...
</subjective>


> > * Use  [].tap{|a| a<< stuff}  so you do not have to return the
> >  result array explicitly (I am not having a variable "words"
> >  or "array" in the function, it is returned as the final result but
> >  not stored in an explicit local variable; so I can impossibly
> >  forget to return the built up array at the end, because "tap"
> >  returns it automatically
>
> There is no advantage to using constructs with tap over regular
> variable I know of. IMO #tap should only be used to "inject" debugging
> or other side-effects into a long method chain. (Although, if you have
> a method chain so long, you probably have other problems...)
>

Could you kindly provide a clearer alternative for this functionality then?

Interested,

Peter

--002354470c5c1fcb0104b81305b3--