Ruby Issue Tracking System

10/02/2024

03:19 PM Ruby Feature #20770: A *new* pipe operator proposal

I agree with @zverok and am not quite sold on the value of `|>` over the existing `.then{}` if we still have to explicitly specify implicit args like `it/_1/etc` (unlike elixir).
I am intrigued by the `.{}` syntax though but wish it did... shuber (Sean Huber)

09/30/2024

04:27 AM Ruby Feature #20770: A *new* pipe operator proposal

I would still love to see this type of pipeline functionality implemented with plain expressions instead of new operators.
I have this (old) working [proof of concept](https://github.com/lendinghome/pipe_operator#-pipe_operator) gem f... shuber (Sean Huber)

06/14/2019

04:56 PM Ruby Feature #15799: pipeline operator

@cichol Agreed! Here is a working proof of concept for an "operator-less" pipe operator which feels more natural in Ruby: https://github.com/lendinghome/pipe_operator
```ruby
# before
JSON.parse(Net::HTTP.get(URI.parse(url)))
# a... shuber (Sean Huber)

12/17/2018

05:16 PM Ruby Feature #15301: Symbol#call, returning method bound with arguments

@zverok wrote:
> I don't believe it is possible at all (both from the technical and organizational points of view).
Ah ok bummer if true! Can you please clarify what you meant by `organizational` above?
Note to future self (or oth... shuber (Sean Huber)

12/16/2018

09:55 PM Ruby Feature #15301: Symbol#call, returning method bound with arguments

zverok (Victor Shepelev) wrote:
> ...but instead will require the change of ALL the methods in standard library accepting a block? Or what do you mean?..
Exactly - no new method/operator, just changes at the parser/compiler level shuber (Sean Huber)

09:24 PM Ruby Feature #15301: Symbol#call, returning method bound with arguments

@matz @zverok
What do you think of this alternative syntax which wouldn't require a new method/operator?
```ruby
[1, 2, 3, 4].map(&:**, 2) #=> [1, 4, 9, 16]
[1, 2, 3].tap(&:delete, 1) #=> [2, 3]
``` shuber (Sean Huber)

07:47 PM Ruby Feature #15301: Symbol#call, returning method bound with arguments

@matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:
> Interesting idea of partial evaluation, but `call` is too generic, and could cause confusion. I am not positive about the expression.
Believe this concept is called [partial application](https://en... shuber (Sean Huber)

08:02 PM Ruby Feature #15419: Allow Kernel#tap to be invoked with arguments like Kernel#send

> Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:
> ...
Perfect thanks @Eregon, [pull request](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/2050) updated!
> oleynikov (Alexander Oleynikov) wrote:
> ...
Thanks for the links to the other discussions @oleynikov, p... shuber (Sean Huber)

12/15/2018

11:34 PM Ruby Feature #15419: Allow Kernel#tap to be invoked with arguments like Kernel#send

The `ruby/spec on Ruby 2.3` check is failing in this PR - I'm not sure what the existing conventions are for adding specs for new features like this.
* Should the new tests be wrapped in `unless RUBY_VERSION <= "2.3"` conditions?
* O... shuber (Sean Huber)

09:48 PM Ruby Feature #8896: #tap with missing block

`Kernel#tap` related: Allow `Kernel#tap` to be invoked with arguments like `Kernel#send` - https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15419
If the `LocalJumpError` breaking change from this ticket is not an issue then it'd be pretty easy to ad... shuber (Sean Huber)