Issue #6817 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).

Assignee set to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)

This ticket is related to [ruby-core:52797] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7939]?
(definitely no?)

Basically, I like this proposal.
But I'm not sure this notation can be acceptable.


FYI: Scheme has similar, but more flexible proposal:
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-26/srfi-26.html

> (cut cons (+ a 1) <>) 	is the same as 	(lambda (x2) (cons (+ a 1) x2))
> (cut list 1 <> 3 <> 5) 	is the same as 	(lambda (x2 x4) (list 1 x2 3 x4 5))
> (cut list) 	is the same as 	(lambda () (list))
> (cut list 1 <> 3 <...>) 	is the same as 	(lambda (x2 . xs) (apply list 1 x2 3 xs))
> (cut <> a b) 	is the same as 	(lambda (f) (f a b))

Of course, it is not ruby's way. This is only sample of the other language.

----------------------------------------
Feature #6817: Partial application
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6817#change-37077

Author: citizen428 (Michael Kohl)
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Category: core
Target version: next minor


=begin

I know that what I propose here is a significant change to Ruby, but it's part of my ongoing quest to get some more functional programming features into Ruby (see also #4539 and #6373).

I was wondering if  it would make sense to maybe introduce partial application to Ruby?  So that instead of 

 (1..3).map { |i| i + 2 }

or the somewhat unwieldy

 (1..3).map(&2.method(:+))

one could just write

 (1..3).map(&2.+) 

which I think has a quite rubyish feel to it. I have a POC implementation in Ruby (I tried it with various Fixnum methods) over at my blog (((<URL:http://citizen428.net/blog/2012/07/30/ruby-left-section-for-infix-operators>))), but that was just a quick hack and obviously I don't want to monkey-patch every method with arity 1, but it was a  nice way of exploring possible syntax.
=end


-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/