Issue #16341 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler). > this change is just nice-to-have sugar. I don't expect it to > become a thing. The ruby core team often points out that having good use cases may help a proposal; and of course avoiding other problems such as backwards-incompatibility or such. Your initial comment is quite sparse, so zverok sort of got you to explain more lateron. ;) I am not really using ruby in a functional-centric manner nor do I know clojure (aside from superficial glances), but to me personally I am not completely sure if the use case has been explained. Unless it was only syntactic sugar of course. ---------------------------------------- Feature #16341: Proposal: Set#to_proc https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16341#change-82626 * Author: Nondv (Dmitry Non) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Target version: ---------------------------------------- ``` ruby class Set def to_proc -> (x) { include?(x) } # or method(:include?).to_proc end end ``` Usage: ```ruby require 'set' banned_numbers = Set[0, 5, 7, 9] (1..10).reject(&banned_numbers) # ===> [1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10] ``` -- 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>