Issue #15897 has been updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada).

I propose to use a new keyword item.

* I feel that using a keyword spelt in letters is the right way here since keywords like self are used in other cases where we reach for things out of the blue without receiving them through argument signature.
* "Item" is close enough to "it", so we may achieve sympathy from some of the people opting for "it", but is not "it", so it does not have the problem that "it" has.
* \item is used in LaTeX as a command to introduce bullet points in listed structures, which is analogous to elements in a block led by each, map and their kins.

ruby
[1, 2, 3].map{item ** 2} # => [1, 4, 9]

* At the same time, "item" does not exclusively mean "element". It is a neutral term regarding that. So it would not be unnatural to be used in blocks led by methods like then, instance_eval and their kins.

ruby
"foo".then{item + "bar"} # => "foobar"


----------------------------------------
Feature #15897: it as a default block parameter
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15897#change-78642

* Author: mame (Yusuke Endoh)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
* Target version:
----------------------------------------
How about considering "it" as a keyword for the block parameter only if it is the form of a local varaible reference and if there is no variable named "it"?


[1, 2, 3].map { it.to_s } #=> ["1", "2", "3"]


If you are familiar with Ruby's parser, this explanation is more useful: NODE_VCALL to "it" is considered as a keyword.

Examples:


public def it(x = "X")
x
end

[1, 2, 3].map { it.to_s }    #=> ["1", "2", "3"]
[1, 2, 3].map { self.it }    #=> ["X", "X", "X"] # a method call because of a receiver
[1, 2, 3].map { it() }       #=> ["X", "X", "X"] # a method call because of parentheses
[1, 2, 3].map { it "Y" }     #=> ["Y", "Y", "Y"] # a method call because of an argument
[1, 2, 3].map { it="Y"; it } #=> ["Y", "Y", "Y"] # there is a variable named "it" in this scope

it = "Z"
[1, 2, 3].map { it.to_s }    #=> ["Z", "Z", "Z"] # there is a variable named "it" in this scope


Pros:
* it is the best word for the feature (according to @matsuda)
* it is reasonably compatible; RSpec won't break because their "it" requires an argument

Cons:
* it actually brings incompatibility in some cases
* it is somewhat fragile; "it" may refer a wrong variable
* it makes the language semantics dirty

Fortunately, it is easy to fix the incompatible programs: just replace it with it().  (Off topic: it is similar to super().)
Just inserting an assignment to a variable "it" may affect another code.  This is a bad news, but, IMO, a variable named "it" is not so often used.  If this proposal is accepted, I guess people will gradually avoid the variable name "it" (like "p").
The dirtiness is the most serious problem for me.  Thus, I don't like my own proposal so much, honestly.  But it would be much better than Perlish @1.  (Note: I don't propose the removal of @1 in this ticket.  It is another topic.)  In any way, I'd like to hear your opinions.

An experimental patch is attached.  The idea is inspired by @jeremyevans0's [proposal of @](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15723#note-98).

P.S. It would be easy to use _ instead of it.  I'm unsure which is preferable.

---Files--------------------------------
its.patch (4.92 KB)

--
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>