Issue #13581 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada).


zverok (Victor Shepelev) wrote:
> Am I correct that receiver-less call, like `something.map(&.:puts)`, will be impossible?

To allow that, `.:puts` should be a sole expression by itself.
However ruby has the line continuation for °»fluent interface°… (like https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13581#change-74822), for a decade.
If `.:` will be introduced, I think it should obey that syntax too, and allowing it without the receiver feels confusing.

> Is it a voluntary design decision, or limitation of what can be parsed?

It is easy to add a receiver-less syntax.
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/2307713962c3610f4e034e328af37b19be5c7c45

----------------------------------------
Feature #13581: Syntax sugar for method reference
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13581#change-74865

* Author: americodls (Americo Duarte)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
Some another programming languages (even Java, in version 8) has a cool way to refer a method as a reference.

I wrote some examples here: https://gist.github.com/americodls/20981b2864d166eee8d231904303f24b

I miss this thing in ruby.

I would thinking if is possible some like this:

~~~
roots = [1, 4, 9].map &Math.method(:sqrt)
~~~

Could be like this:

~~~
roots = [1, 4, 9].map Math->method
~~~

What do you guys thinking about it?



-- 
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>