From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: poffice@blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp Delivered-To: poffice@blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp Received: from kankan.nagaokaut.ac.jp (kankan.nagaokaut.ac.jp [133.44.2.24]) by blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9622719C0061 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:13:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from voscc.nagaokaut.ac.jp (voscc.nagaokaut.ac.jp [133.44.1.100]) by kankan.nagaokaut.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E167DB5D89B for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:43:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (neon.ruby-lang.org [221.186.184.75]) by voscc.nagaokaut.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE7F18CC7B6 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:43:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from [221.186.184.76] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2034A120483; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:43:05 +0900 (JST) X-Original-To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Delivered-To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Received: from o2.heroku.sendgrid.net (o2.heroku.sendgrid.net [67.228.50.55]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A44F1120465 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:43:01 +0900 (JST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=from:to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id; s=smtpapi; bh=nJB7C77xe4ZFzvbgJZBg4cVYDqo=; b=N+4WbvXLAEIDAlEyXs cd58Ex4dHBAqCdwdzwPjCid3XPccgWZFgmMvenaU5HaQDI/WjpRCgmSV518PbDwC jcjBzqN3quggr+O1z7ERXempMpkNzQZfLO+KHUsTakMjX9bU7mPrElz+GNG21Ymd /5E0bxx+FJYa+ZfxUo41Mzd6s= Received: by filter-396.sjc1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter-396.13626.564191F222 2015-11-10 06:42:58.478079797 +0000 UTC Received: from herokuapp.com (ec2-54-87-47-176.compute-1.amazonaws.com [54.87.47.176]) by ismtpd0003p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id HRSpoSdRToKRIm0vfxRYpA for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 06:42:58.505 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 06:42:58 +0000 From: hanmac@gmx.de To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Redmine-MailingListIntegration-Message-Ids: 46069 X-Redmine-Project: ruby-trunk X-Redmine-Issue-Id: 11665 X-Redmine-Issue-Author: keithrbennett X-Redmine-Sender: Hanmac X-Mailer: Redmine X-Redmine-Host: bugs.ruby-lang.org X-Redmine-Site: Ruby Issue Tracking System X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-SG-EID: ync6xU2WACa70kv/Ymy4QrNMhiuLXJG8OTL2vJD1yS4c1aX+rczoShKKlJ8HWgzzslBS2mt8XHHA3F BYMwJwAXal4OOjIWmHXWhGqLzfWj8msfvmXjieufvWrMZaPF9aCFAnpRJzwvpJEPfbIrijgD9xb4jE lVQhzF6ZUpRFH4E= X-ML-Name: ruby-core X-Mail-Count: 71429 Subject: [ruby-core:71429] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11665] Support nested functions for better code organization X-BeenThere: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ruby developers List-Id: Ruby developers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ruby-core-bounces@ruby-lang.org Sender: "ruby-core" Issue #11665 has been updated by Hans Mackowiak. apropos Procs and lambda, can't we create one which does not have a binding/access to local variables on the outside? such a construct might be even faster to run, and maybe even serialize-able ---------------------------------------- Feature #11665: Support nested functions for better code organization https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11665#change-54798 * Author: Keith Bennett * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ---------------------------------------- The wisdom of using local variables has been internalized in all of us from the beginning of our software careers. If we need a variable referring to data that is used only in a single method, we create a local variable for it. Yet if it is logic to which we need to refer, we make it an instance method instead. In my opinion, this is inconsistent and unfortunate. The result is a bloated set of instance methods that the reader must wade through to mentally parse the class. The fact that some of these methods are used only by one other method is never communicated by the code; the reader has to discover that for him/herself. The number of possible interactions among the instance methods is one of many measures of our software's complexity. The number of possible instance method interactions is (method_count * (method_count) - 1). Using this formula, a class with 10 methods will have a complexity of 90. If 4 of those methods are used by only 1 other method, and we could move them inside those methods, the complexity would plummet to 30 (6 * (6 - 1)), a third of the original amount! While it is possible to extract subsets of these methods into new smaller classes, this is not always practical, especially in the case of methods called only by the constructor. Fortunately, we do have lambdas in Ruby, so I will sometimes create lambdas inside methods for this purpose. However, lambdas are not as isolated as methods, in that they can access and modify local variables previously defined outside their scope. Furthermore, the lambdas can be passed elsewhere in the program and modify those locals from afar! So using methods would be cleaner and safer. Another weakness of using lambdas for this purpose is that, unlike methods that are created at interpret time, lambdas are objects created at runtime -- so if a method creating 2 lambdas is called a million times in a loop, you'll need to create and garbage collect another 2 million objects. (This can be circumvented by defining the lambdas as class constants or assigning them to instance variables, but then they might as well be instance methods.) I realize that implementing this feature would be a substantial undertaking and may not be feasible at this time. That said, I think it would be useful to discuss this now so we might benefit from its implementation someday. * * * * (Much of this content is communicated in my talk on Ruby lambdas; slide show is at https://speakerdeck.com/keithrbennett/ruby-lambdas-functional-conf-bangalore-oct-2014 and YouTube video of the presentation at FunctionalConf in Bangalore at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyRgf6Qc5pw.) Also, this post is also posted as a blog article at http://www.bbs-software.com/blog/2015/11/07/the-case-for-nested-methods-in-ruby/. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/