Issue #15301 has been updated by zverok (Victor Shepelev).



> What I personally found with method_missing is that it can become very confusing.

My proposal have absolutely nothing to do with `method_missing`.

> I think ".(2)" is very unusual though.

It is not, it is standard Ruby feature since Ruby 1.9, AFAIK (everything that responds to `#call` could be called with `foo.(args)`), for almost whole 11 years now. It is suggested as a preferred call-sequence by a lot of modern libraries.

> I think using .map twice like that is a bit odd. 

Like @marcandre explained already, it is just two nested cycles, e.g. the "non-abridged" version looks like this:

```ruby
[[1, -2], [-3, -4]].map { |nested| nested.map(&:abs) }
```

----------------------------------------
Feature #15301: Symbol#call, returning method bound with arguments
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15301#change-74857

* Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
In one Reddit discussion I've got stuck with this simple, yet seemingly powerful idea, not sure if it was discussed anytime previously (can't find on the bug tracker, but maybe I am just bad at searching):

```ruby
class Symbol
  def call(*args, &block)
    proc { |x| x.send(self, *args, &block) }
  end
end

[10, 20, 30].map &:modulo.(3) # => [1, 2, 0]
[[1, -2], [-3, -4]].map(&:map.(&:abs)) # => [[1, 2], [3, 4]]
[1, 2, 3, 4].map &:**.(2) # => [1, 4, 9, 16]
```

I understand and respect core team's reluctance for adding new methods to core classes, but from the top of my head I can't invent _incredibly_ bad consequences (there, of course, could be some codebases that defined their own `Symbol#call` in a different way, but I don't estimate the probability as super-high; and the same could be said almost for any new method).

On the other hand, resulting code seems pretty nice, "Rubyish", explainable and mostly unambiguous. 

Would like to hear other's opinions.

PS: One obvious objection could be that it is almost a de-facto standard to have any object's `#to_proc` to return proc doing exactly the same what the `#call` does (if the object happen to have both). It is unfortunate, but I believe the people will use to it, considering the possible gains. And, anyway, that's only "de-facto" rule, not the language standard :) 



-- 
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>