Feature #9451
closedRefinements and unary & (to_proc)
Description
Not sure if this is a bug or feature request:
require 'minitest/autorun'
require 'set'
module ClassToProc
refine Class do
def to_proc
lambda{ |*args| self.new(*args) }
end
end
end
using ClassToProc
describe 'Class#to_proc' do
it 'works when called directly' do
Set.to_proc[[1,2]].must_equal Set[1,2]
end
it 'fails when called via ampersand' do
[[1,2]].map(&Set).must_equal [Set[1,2]]
end
end
The second example errors with NoMethodError: super: no superclass method `to_proc' for Set:Class
Would be great to have it, though.
Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) almost 11 years ago
- Assignee set to shugo (Shugo Maeda)
As #===
from case
statement and #each
from for statement, I think refinement should be effective to methods that called implicitly. Let us discuss about the issue.
Matz.
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) almost 11 years ago
- Tracker changed from Bug to Feature
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
As
#===
fromcase
statement and#each
from for statement, I think refinement should be effective to methods that called implicitly. Let us discuss about the issue.
What do you think of other implicit conversions such as to_a
called by the splat operator.
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) almost 11 years ago
- Category set to core
- Status changed from Open to Assigned
- Assignee changed from shugo (Shugo Maeda) to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
- Target version set to 2.2.0
I'd like to clarify the design policy rather than adding features ad hoc.
All implicit method calls in syntactic constructs should be affected by refinements, right?
Do other implementers, especially JRuby people, accept this policy?
Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) over 10 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
IMHO, splat should be affected by refinements, because there is no intermediate method calls.
Updated by justcolin (Colin Fulton) almost 9 years ago
Is there any update on this feature? In Ruby 2.2.3 I still run into a problem where the unary & can not be used when the method was added with a refinement, such as the following:
module Example
refine String do
def pugs
"Pugs!"
end
end
end
using Example
('a'..'z').map(&:pugs)
I can understand why they currently do not work, but it leads to uglier code.
Cheers!
Updated by justcolin (Colin Fulton) almost 9 years ago
Sorry, just saw that issue 9786 is equivalent to this one and was marked as rejected. Thanks!
Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) over 8 years ago
- Has duplicate Feature #12638: Symbol#to_proc probable bug (seems not to support refinements) added
Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) about 8 years ago
I now think it's OK to accept this proposal. But I don't know how difficult to implement the issue.
Matz.
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) about 8 years ago
- Has duplicate Feature #12079: Loosening the condition for refinement added
Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) about 8 years ago
- Status changed from Assigned to Closed
Applied in changeset r56426.
vm_args.c: allow refinements in Symbol proc
- vm_args.c (refine_sym_proc_call): search and call method with
refinements. - vm_args.c (vm_caller_setup_arg_block): enable refinements when
enabled in the caller. [Feature #9451]