Feature #7907

Give meaning to staby word

Added by trans (Thomas Sawyer) over 7 years ago. Updated over 7 years ago.

Target version:


I noticed that ->word doesn't mean anything. i.e.

SyntaxError: (irb):4: syntax error, unexpected '\n', expecting keyword_do_LAMBDA or tLAMBEG
from /opt/Ruby/1.9.3-p327/bin/irb:12:in `'

If that is always so, then could it be given a meaning as a shorthand for method()? i.e.


would be the same as writing



Related issues

Is duplicate of Ruby master - Feature #7906: Giving meaning to ->foo Rejectedmatz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)02/22/2013Actions

Updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada) over 7 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)
  • Assignee set to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)

Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) over 7 years ago

  • Status changed from Open to Rejected

I think filling the syntax hole eagerly is a bad idea.

Besides that, I don't think making ((%->foo%)) as method(:foo).to_proc seems a good idea,
since foo in ((%->foo{}%)) is a argument name, not a method name.


Updated by trans (Thomas Sawyer) over 7 years ago

Ah, ->foo{} did not know that the parenthesis could be left out.

Ok, I'll suggest slight modification then, b/c it still would be nice to have a shorter notation (not just to fill a syntax hole). Could it be a symbol, i.e. ->:foo.

Updated by trans (Thomas Sawyer) over 7 years ago

Once a issue has been rejected, is it necessary to open a new case for a modified form of the proposal? In other words is any one going to see the change if it has already been rejected? As with this case?

Updated by rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas) over 7 years ago

People will see the changes but when they're looking for open issues to decide what to do about them they won't touch closed issues :)

Also available in: Atom PDF