Issue #14594 has been updated by avit (Andrew Vit).


matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:
> If you really wanted a non-unwrapping method for promises, use `yield_self`.

If I understand what you mean by "unwrapping" here, the new method still doesn't `call` yielded procs to make them composable: it's only an alias for `yield_self`, right? 

Is this still a possible consideration?

- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6284
- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13600

Thanks for this by the way, I very much prefer the new name!

----------------------------------------
Feature #14594: Rethink yield_self's name
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14594#change-72319

* Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev)
* Status: Closed
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
*I feel really uncomfortable raising the question again, but...*

In several months since 2.5 release I've written a lot of code with `yield_self` (using `backports` gem with earlier versions of Ruby when necessary), and explained it several times to students, and colleagues (and in this [blog post](https://zverok.github.io/blog/2018-01-24-yield_self.html) which have gained pretty decent attention). 

I should say that I am still assured the name chosen is really not optimal. Reasons:

* it is just too long for such a basic operation;
* it does not say "what it does", but rather "how it is implemented"; it is like having `each_returning_block_result` instead of `map`;
* `self` is really misguiding and obscure in situations like this:

```ruby
class MyClass
  def some_method
    @path.yield_self(&File.method(:read)).yield_self(&Parser.method(:new)) ...
  end
end
```
Intuitively, word "self" inside instance method is read like it somehow related to current context's `self` (e.g. instance of `MyClass`), which it is absolutely not. In other words, "self" in caller's context has nothing to do with "self" implied by method's name.

After reconsidering a lot of options, **my current proposal is: `#then`**.

Reasons:

* despite being a keyword, `something.then(something)` is not a conflicting Ruby syntax, and allowed by current Ruby;
* it is short!
* it shows intention pretty well, and reads natural, in both cases: when receives block and when returns Enumerator:

```ruby
File.read(filename).then(&JSON.method(:parse))
rand(10).then.detect(&:odd?)
```

In many languages, `.then` or `.and_then` is useful construct, meaning the same (calculate next value from the result of the previous operation), just in a narrower context of futures/promises. I believe that even when/if Ruby will have those as a language feature, that syntax will play well:

```ruby
value.then(&:computation) # => value
promise.then(&:computation) # => promise
```

PS: For historical reasons, [here](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12760#note-5) is huge list of previous proposals I've gathered for this method name.



-- 
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>