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>