[ruby-core:49298] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7346][Open] object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)

[rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)]

Issue #7346 has been reported by rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas).

----------------------------------------
Feature #7346: object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7346

Author: rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Category: core
Target version: Next Major


I propose for the parser to interpret "object(...)" as "object.call(...)". It should raise NoMethodError at runtime if object doesn't respond to "call".

This would read better than using "call":

double = -> n { n * 2 }

double(3) == 6

Sorry if this has already been proposed before (and rejected) but I couldn't find any references to something like this using Redmine's search interface.


--
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

[matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)]

Issue #7346 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto).

Status changed from Open to Rejected

I have once tried, but it caused serious incompatibility problem for example:

p = Object.new
p(15)

So compromise with object.() syntax introduced in 1.9.

Matz.

----------------------------------------
Feature #7346: object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7346#change-32857

Author: rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)

Status: Rejected

[rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)]

Issue #7346 has been updated by rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas).


Ah, ok, I didn't know about this syntax until now. What does the code above do?

----------------------------------------
Feature #7346: object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7346#change-32858

Author: rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)

Status: Rejected

[matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)]

Issue #7346 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto).


We easily forget conflict between method names and variable names, in a language like Ruby, where methods and variables have separated name space.

We expect p(15) to print 15 even when we have a variable named p in the scope.

Matz.

----------------------------------------
Feature #7346: object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7346#change-32859

Author: rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)

Status: Rejected

[rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)]

Issue #7346 has been updated by rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas).


Ah, of course! :D I totally forgot about Kernel#p! :P

Yes, that makes total sense.

----------------------------------------
Feature #7346: object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7346#change-32860

Author: rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)

Status: Rejected

[Nathan Broadbent]

@rosenfeld, I'll just mention that you can use Proc#[] in your example:

double = -> n { n * 2 }

double[3] == 6  #=> true

[rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)]

Issue #7346 has been updated by rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas).


Yes, I know, it is just that I prefer to read object.call(arguments) than object[arguments]. This is just a personal opinion, I know and I can change my mind some day about this :)

----------------------------------------
Feature #7346: object(...) as syntax sugar for object.call(...)

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7346#change-32875

Author: rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)

Status: Rejected