Project

General

Profile

Actions

Feature #6672

closed

Calling #() without dot before braces

Added by prijutme4ty (Ilya Vorontsov) over 12 years ago. Updated about 12 years ago.

Status:
Rejected
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
[ruby-core:45973]

Description

=begin
It looks odd to call Proc/Method (({pr})) using (({pr.(*args)})) or (({pr[*args]})) syntax. Why not to use (({pr(*args)})) syntax? In such a case methods(procs) would become nearer to first-class object and calls are more standardized such that there's much less difference between method call and call of (({#call})) method

So I suggest syntax (({x.(*args,&block)})) alias to (({x(*args,&block)}))
It will make it possible to transparently redefine any method in a scope like this:
class String
def my_meth(direction)
index = method :rindex if direction == 'RtoL'

... lots of code that uses #index method

end

def my_second_meth
  upcase = method :downcase  # we decided to try what if we change all upcases to downcases in this method and added such a line

lots of code using upcase() method

  upcase()  # it's sad that it's impossible not to use brackets at all, but this'd be ambiguous
end

end

Also I wrote about syntax like (({:meth.(*args)})) which creates a proxy-object having to_proc method - so that it's possible to write (({[1,2,3].map &:to_s.(2)})) -- now no dot in such syntax

Also it'd be possible to implement some object with syntax like (({obj(args1)(args2)})) - obj has method (({#call})) that returns object that also has method (({#call})) and they are both called.
It can be in such a way: (({method(:index)('z')}))

One problem is that it can behave differently from current behavior in case that method have the same name as a local-variable. Now it works in such a way:
p='var';
print p #=> 'var' ## works as local variable
p('hi') #=> 'hi' ## works as method call

I don't know if it's a spec, I suppose that one mustn't use both variable and method at the same place. So even it's a spec it can be revised in future versions of ruby so that new behaviour would be like that:
p='var';
print p #=> 'var' ## works as local variable
p('hi') #=> undefined method call for 'var':String
=end


Related issues 1 (0 open1 closed)

Is duplicate of Ruby master - Feature #7346: object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)Rejectedmatz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)11/13/2012Actions

Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) over 12 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)

FYI, this is a feature which had been implemented once and reverted in the past.

I don't know if it's a spec, I suppose that one mustn't use both variable and method at the same place. So even it's a spec it can be revised in future versions of ruby so that new behaviour would be like that:

Yes, it's a spec, and there was so many code depending this, more than expected before the try.

Updated by prijutme4ty (Ilya Vorontsov) over 12 years ago

nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) wrote:

FYI, this is a feature which had been implemented once and reverted in the past.

I don't know if it's a spec, I suppose that one mustn't use both variable and method at the same place. So even it's a spec it can be revised in future versions of ruby so that new behaviour would be like that:

Yes, it's a spec, and there was so many code depending this, more than expected before the try.

Sadly. It looks that code basing on such a spec isn't written in a good manner =\

Actions #3

Updated by Anonymous about 12 years ago

In that case this issue should be closed. (I also think this feature is too much sugar.)

Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) about 12 years ago

  • Status changed from Open to Rejected
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF

Like0
Like0Like0Like0Like0