Sean O'Halpin wrote:
> On 7/1/06, Alex Young <alex / blackkettle.org> wrote:
> 
>> Matthew Harris wrote:
>> > I don't know if this was posted previously, but I had the idea of a
>> > Array#to_proc, an example would be:
>> >
>> > [9, 19, 29].map(&[:succ, :to_s, :reverse])
>> > => ["01", "02", "03"]
>> >
>> > I've seen people ask questions such as arr.map(&'meth1.meth2.meth3')
>> > but I think using the Array#to_proc solution is cleaner.
>> >
>> > Would this actually prove useful? It would seem that using the normal
>> > block form would be just as much typing, though.
>> >
>> I'd rather do this:
>>
>> class Proc
>>    def +(other)
>>      proc {|*args|
>>        args = [self.call(*args)]
>>        other.call(*args)
>>      }
>>    end
>> end
>>
>> [9, 19, 29].map( &:succ + &:to_s + &:reverse )
>> #=> ["01", "02", "03"]
>>
>> but I'm just weird like that :-)
>>
>> Is this useful for anything?  It looks like it should be, but I can't
>> think of what...
>>
>> -- 
>> Alex
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I get a "parse error, unexpected tAMPER" with ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24)
> [i386-mswin32].
> What version are you using?
Sorry, it assumes a working Symbol#to_proc that's supported with that 
syntax...   The proc chaining is what's interesting from my point of view.

-- 
Alex