Feature #7314
openConvert Proc to Lambda doesn't work in MRI
Description
I have code where I need to convert a proc to a lambda (i need to be able to return out of the block). I would expect that passing a proc into a lambda to return a lambda. When I run this code on MRI i do not get the result I would expect
my_proc = proc { |x| x }
my_lambda = lambda &my_proc
my_lambda.lambda?
The result is false
but I would expect it to be true
There is currently a way to turn a proc into a lambda in MRI like this:
def convert_to_lambda &block
obj = Object.new
obj.define_singleton_method(:_, &block)
return obj.method(:_).to_proc
end
But this feels like a hack, and is not supported across other implementations. I would expect that passing a proc into a lambda to return a lambda, I believe it is a bug.
Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) almost 12 years ago
- Tracker changed from Bug to Feature
Moved this to feature tracker. I think you are feeling this like a hack because, you are in fact doing something hacky (return from a block).
Anyway I'm not against that kind of feature, though I'm not sure if that can be achieved by lambda(&proc). So I feel a needs of discussion.
Updated by schneems (Richard Schneeman) almost 12 years ago
I would like a standard way to turn a Proc into a lambda even if it cannot be achieved through lambda(&proc)
. I don't know if it will affect the outcome, but jRuby correctly returns a lambda from lambda(&proc)
in 1.9 mode.
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) almost 12 years ago
- Status changed from Open to Assigned
- Assignee set to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
- Target version set to 2.6
Matz will require a use case, I guess.
--
Yusuke Endoh mame@tsg.ne.jp
Updated by avit (Andrew Vit) almost 9 years ago
Use case: a stored block gets called with a "target" as first parameter, plus optional arguments. If the target object is an array, then the behaviour is unpredictable:
lm = lambda { |target, *options| puts target.inspect, options.inspect }
pr = proc { |target, *options| puts target.inspect, options.inspect }
lm.call([1,2], 'a') #=> [1, 2], ["a"]
pr.call([1,2], 'a') #=> [1, 2], ["a"]
lm.call([1,2]) #=> [1, 2], []
pr.call([1,2]) #=> 1, [2]
Note how calling the block with only a single array destructures the "target" argument.
If we need to avoid destructuring, a lambda does the right thing, so converting it would be helpful.
Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) over 8 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) over 8 years ago
We looked at this issue in yesterday's developer meeting.
The use case Andrew showed is (in spite of his intention) not unpredictable. Rather, if we allowed proc->lambda transformation, it gets unpredictable for a proc body what to expect for its first argument.
When writing a proc literal, its programmer's intention is clear that they wanted proc-style behaviour in mind. Currently if a block starts with "lambda {", it behaves like a lambda. All others are proc. This is consistent. But if we introduce proc conversion, this intension breaks. You can't predict what would happen when a proc is actually called during you write that proc; because it can be converted later. This is bad.
Updated by headius (Charles Nutter) over 8 years ago
Maybe this should warn or error when you attempt to turn a proc into a lambda?
The JRuby behavior is not intentional and we'll align with whatever MRI does. I'd also note that next
always exits the block exactly like lambda's return
, for all of procs, lambdas, and uncaptured blocks.
Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) over 8 years ago
Shyouhei Urabe wrote:
Currently if a block starts with "lambda {", it behaves like a lambda. All others are proc.
I have to apology that I forgot about stabby lambdas here. They behave like lamndas too.
Anyways this doesn't change the fact that the way a Proc instance behaves, is statically determined when they are literally written. I think it is a good property. I'd like to +1 to Charles' proposal to add warning when people try converting a proc into lambda.
Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) almost 8 years ago
- Related to Feature #12957: A more OO way to create lambda Procs added
Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) over 5 years ago
- Related to Feature #15973: Let Kernel#lambda always return a lambda added