Issue #2172 has been updated by Marc-Andre Lafortune.


Forgot to note that the other possiblity suggested for `chunk` with no block can now be done clearly and succintly with `chunk(&:itself)`, so there's no longer any doubt that the block without form should return an `Enumerator`

----------------------------------------
Feature #2172: Enumerable#chunk with no block
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/2172#change-60583

* Author: Marc-Andre Lafortune
* Status: Assigned
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Yukihiro Matsumoto
----------------------------------------
=begin
 What should "(1..3).chunk" (i.e. without a block) do?
 
 It issued an
 ArgumentError: tried to create Proc object without a block
 
 I changed the error message to "no block given" which I hope to be more informative, but maybe there is something more useful to do here?
 
 A default block of {|x| x} doesn't seem all that useful.
 
 Returning an enumerator that, upon completion, will return an enumerator would probably be better, but could also be a bit confusing if someone doesn't realize he forgot to specify the block?
 
 Thanks to Run Paint for raising the question when writing the rubyspec for #chunk.
=end




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

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>