Issue #13581 has been updated by AlexWayfer (Alexander Popov).


zverok (Victor Shepelev) wrote:
> > Just an opinion
> 
> It is funny how when you show some imaginary code, quick-written just to illustrate the point of a language feature, people tend to discuss this code's design approaches instead. 
> 
> Yes, obviously, in the situation like "several consecutive, algorithmically complex methods working on the same collection" it is _typically_ wise to just wrap collection items. But that has _absolutely_ nothing to do with the point of my example.

I just try to use good (existing) sides of a language. Ruby already has nice `Symbol#to_proc` syntax. And yes, different "syntax sugars" allow to use different design approaches (classes vs functions, for example). But sometimes they also allow to create bad practices. I'm not sure, and I'm not against syntax sugar, butí─ I like solutions for real problems, not imaginary. With knowledge of solutions for imaginary problems we can create these problems later, without resolving them with other approaches.

----------------------------------------
Feature #13581: Syntax sugar for method reference
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13581#change-74872

* 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>