Re: Using _ like in Scala?

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Josh Cheek <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Robert Klemme <[e-mail]=
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Josh Cheek <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Robert Klemme <
>> [e-mail]>wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Although what I'd really like would be a syntax for naming inline
>> blocks,
>> >> > then my editor could fold the block body inside the name, something
>> like
>> >> > %w[apple banana orange].each display
>> >> >
>> >> > And it would expand to something like
>> >> > %w[apple banana orange].each { |display -> fruit| puts fruit }
>> >>
>> >> How would the above be derived from the line further up?
>> >>
>> > The name would have no impact on the language, it is still just a bloc=
k
>> > which takes one argument. It exists to help the developer (and be used=
 by
>> > the editor).
>>
>> Hmm... =A0Maybe I wasn't clear enough. =A0I was trying to ask how any
>> automated mechanism could read
>>
>> %w[apple banana orange].each display
>>
>> and know it must make
>>
>> %w[apple banana orange].each { |display -> fruit| puts fruit }
>>
>> from it. =A0I am asking specifically since "puts" is nowhere mentioned
>> in the line above. =A0So even if the syntax would be allowed there would
>> have to be some ruling which leads to an interpretation equivalent to
>> the second line.
>>
>>
> Not sure about other editors, but TextMate knows what context it is in if
> you write something like `[].each { |e| }` put your cursor before the e a=
nd
> press C-P, it tells you variable.other.block.ruby. So it knows when it is
> in block paramaters, it would just need to then understand that within th=
is
> context, if it sees something like `|name -> var|` that "name" is the nam=
e
> of this block, and then just allow for block folding. It actually already
> does all this
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/josh.cheek/images/scratch/block_folding.png but
> instead of showing '...' it could show 'name ...'

So you are talking about an editor feature and not a language feature?
 I am starting to get an idea of where I misunderstood you... :-)

> In this example, for instance
> https://github.com/JoshCheek/deject/blob/5bc94b05cfca045afebcb447170d9f54=
9b9e4006/lib/deject/object_oriented.rb#L39-43
>
> It would be nice if I could define the block like this `|override_body ->
> value=3Dnil, &initializer|`
>
> Which would then get folded up like this (with visual distinction clues
> provided by the highlighter)
>
> def define_override
> =A0ivar, meth =3D self.ivar, self.meth
> =A0klass.send :define_method, "with_#{meth}" override_body...
> end
>
> That method is pretty easy to understand, but when you expand it, the cod=
e
> of the body is inline with the code that sets up the definition, causing =
it
> to take much more effort to understand (you parse/interpret it to determi=
ne
> what is and is not relevant to you).

Again, an editor feature?

Cheers

robert


--=20
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/