Feature #7346
closed
object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)
Added by rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas) almost 12 years ago.
Updated almost 12 years ago.
Description
I propose for the parser to interpret "object(...)" as "object.call(...)". It should raise NoMethodError at runtime if object doesn't respond to "call".
This would read better than using "call":
double = -> n { n * 2 }
double(3) == 6
Sorry if this has already been proposed before (and rejected) but I couldn't find any references to something like this using Redmine's search interface.
- Status changed from Open to Rejected
I have once tried, but it caused serious incompatibility problem for example:
p = Object.new
p(15)
So compromise with object.() syntax introduced in 1.9.
Matz.
Ah, ok, I didn't know about this syntax until now. What does the code above do?
We easily forget conflict between method names and variable names, in a language like Ruby, where methods and variables have separated name space.
We expect p(15) to print 15 even when we have a variable named p in the scope.
Matz.
Ah, of course! :D I totally forgot about Kernel#p! :P
Yes, that makes total sense.
@rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas), I'll just mention that you can use Proc#[] in your example:
double = -> n { n * 2 }
double[3] == 6 #=> true
On Wednesday, 14 November 2012, rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas) wrote:
Issue #7346 has been updated by rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas).
Ah, of course! :D I totally forgot about Kernel#p! :P
Yes, that makes total sense.¶
Feature #7346: object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7346#change-32860
Author: rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)
Status: Rejected
Priority: Normal
Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Category: core
Target version: Next Major
I propose for the parser to interpret "object(...)" as "object.call(...)".
It should raise NoMethodError at runtime if object doesn't respond to
"call".
This would read better than using "call":
double = -> n { n * 2 }
double(3) == 6
Sorry if this has already been proposed before (and rejected) but I
couldn't find any references to something like this using Redmine's search
interface.
--
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Yes, I know, it is just that I prefer to read object.call(arguments) than object[arguments]. This is just a personal opinion, I know and I can change my mind some day about this :)
Also available in: Atom
PDF
Like0
Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0