< :前の番号
^ :番号順リスト
> :次の番号
P :前の記事(スレッド移動)
N :次の記事(スレッド移動)
|<:前のスレッド
>|:次のスレッド
^ :返事先
_:自分への返事
>:同じ返事先を持つ記事(前)
<:同じ返事先を持つ記事(後)
---:分割してスレッド表示、再表示
| :分割して(縦)スレッド表示、再表示
~ :スレッドのフレーム消去
.:インデックス
..:インデックスのインデックス
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>