[ruby-core:94342] [Ruby master Feature#16102] `Symbol#call`

[ruby-core:94342] [Ruby master Feature#16102] `Symbol#call`

[sawadatsuyoshi]

Issue #16102 has been reported by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada).

----------------------------------------
Feature #16102: `Symbol#call`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16102

* Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
Since symbols have a `to_proc` method, it is natural to expect that they would appear in a method chain like:

```ruby
:some_symbol.to_proc.call(...)
```

In fact, I have use cases like this:

```ruby
arrays = [["a", "b"], ["c"], ["d", "e"]]
hashes = [{"a" => 1}, {"b" => 2, "c" => 3}, {"d" => 4, "e" => 5}]

:product.to_proc.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["a", "c", "e"], ["b", "c", "d"], ["b", "c", "e"]]
:zip.to_proc.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["b", nil, "e"]]
:union.to_proc.(*arrays) # => ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
:merge.to_proc.(*hashes) # => {"a"=>1, "b"=>2, "c"=>3, "d"=>4, "e"=>5}
```

I request `Symbol#call` to be defined, which would implicitly call `to_proc` on the receiver and then the conventional `Proc#call` on the result. Then, I can do:

```ruby
:product.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["a", "c", "e"], ["b", "c", "d"], ["b", "c", "e"]]
:zip.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["b", nil, "e"]]
:union.(*arrays) # => ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
:merge.(*hashes) # => {"a"=>1, "b"=>2, "c"=>3, "d"=>4, "e"=>5}
```

Notice that proposals #12115 and #15301 ask for `Symbol#call`, but they ask for different things (a method that returns a proc), and are irrelevant to the current proposal.



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

[ruby-core:94343] [Ruby master Feature#16102] `Symbol#call`

[sawadatsuyoshi]

Issue #16102 has been updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada).


Related to #11262.

----------------------------------------
Feature #16102: `Symbol#call`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16102#change-80742

* Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
Since symbols have a `to_proc` method, it is natural to expect that they would appear in a method chain like:

```ruby
:some_symbol.to_proc.call(...)
```

In fact, I have use cases like this:

```ruby
arrays = [["a", "b"], ["c"], ["d", "e"]]
hashes = [{"a" => 1}, {"b" => 2, "c" => 3}, {"d" => 4, "e" => 5}]

:product.to_proc.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["a", "c", "e"], ["b", "c", "d"], ["b", "c", "e"]]
:zip.to_proc.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["b", nil, "e"]]
:union.to_proc.(*arrays) # => ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
:merge.to_proc.(*hashes) # => {"a"=>1, "b"=>2, "c"=>3, "d"=>4, "e"=>5}
```

I request `Symbol#call` to be defined, which would implicitly call `to_proc` on the receiver and then the conventional `Proc#call` on the result. Then, I can do:

```ruby
:product.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["a", "c", "e"], ["b", "c", "d"], ["b", "c", "e"]]
:zip.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["b", nil, "e"]]
:union.(*arrays) # => ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
:merge.(*hashes) # => {"a"=>1, "b"=>2, "c"=>3, "d"=>4, "e"=>5}
```

Notice that proposals #12115 and #15301 ask for `Symbol#call`, but they ask for different things (a method that returns a proc), and are irrelevant to the current proposal.



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

[ruby-core:94345] [Ruby master Feature#16102] `Symbol#call`

[shevegen]

Issue #16102 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).


I have no particular pro/con opinion on the suggested functionality here itself.

In my opinion, this is mostly a design consideration for how "useful" matz
wants to see symbols being used in ruby. (This may not be directly related
to the comment here, but more generally in how simple, complex or useful
matz may want to see symbols.)

On a side note, it is (to me) interesting that sawa is not the only one
with somewhat related ideas in this regard, as he has pointed out via
mentioning https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12115. :)

----------------------------------------
Feature #16102: `Symbol#call`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16102#change-80748

* Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
Since symbols have a `to_proc` method, it is natural to expect that they would appear in a method chain like:

```ruby
:some_symbol.to_proc.call(...)
```

In fact, I have use cases like this:

```ruby
arrays = [["a", "b"], ["c"], ["d", "e"]]
hashes = [{"a" => 1}, {"b" => 2, "c" => 3}, {"d" => 4, "e" => 5}]

:product.to_proc.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["a", "c", "e"], ["b", "c", "d"], ["b", "c", "e"]]
:zip.to_proc.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["b", nil, "e"]]
:union.to_proc.(*arrays) # => ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
:merge.to_proc.(*hashes) # => {"a"=>1, "b"=>2, "c"=>3, "d"=>4, "e"=>5}
```

I request `Symbol#call` to be defined, which would implicitly call `to_proc` on the receiver and then the conventional `Proc#call` on the result. Then, I can do:

```ruby
:product.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["a", "c", "e"], ["b", "c", "d"], ["b", "c", "e"]]
:zip.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["b", nil, "e"]]
:union.(*arrays) # => ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
:merge.(*hashes) # => {"a"=>1, "b"=>2, "c"=>3, "d"=>4, "e"=>5}
```

This would solve what proposals #6499, #6727, #7444, #8970, #11262 aim to do.

Notice that proposals #12115 and #15301 ask for `Symbol#call`, but they ask for different things (a method that returns a proc), and are irrelevant to the current proposal.



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

[ruby-core:94347] [Ruby master Feature#16102] `Symbol#call`

[mame]

Issue #16102 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).


I agree that `ary1.zip(ary2, ary3)` is asymmetric and uncool, but I don't like solving the issue by adding a method of Symbol.  `:zip.(*arrays)` looks too cryptic and semantically hacky to me.  Rather, I like your #8970: `Array.zip(ary1, ary2, ary3)`.  It is much simpler, clearer, and easier to understand.  

----------------------------------------
Feature #16102: `Symbol#call`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16102#change-80750

* Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
Since symbols have a `to_proc` method, it is natural to expect that they would appear in a method chain like:

```ruby
:some_symbol.to_proc.call(...)
```

In fact, I have use cases like this:

```ruby
arrays = [["a", "b"], ["c"], ["d", "e"]]
hashes = [{"a" => 1}, {"b" => 2, "c" => 3}, {"d" => 4, "e" => 5}]

:product.to_proc.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["a", "c", "e"], ["b", "c", "d"], ["b", "c", "e"]]
:zip.to_proc.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["b", nil, "e"]]
:union.to_proc.(*arrays) # => ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
:merge.to_proc.(*hashes) # => {"a"=>1, "b"=>2, "c"=>3, "d"=>4, "e"=>5}
```

I request `Symbol#call` to be defined, which would implicitly call `to_proc` on the receiver and then the conventional `Proc#call` on the result. Then, I can do:

```ruby
:product.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["a", "c", "e"], ["b", "c", "d"], ["b", "c", "e"]]
:zip.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["b", nil, "e"]]
:union.(*arrays) # => ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
:merge.(*hashes) # => {"a"=>1, "b"=>2, "c"=>3, "d"=>4, "e"=>5}
```

This would solve what proposals #6499, #6727, #7444, #8970, #11262 aim to do.

Notice that proposals #12115 and #15301 ask for `Symbol#call`, but they ask for different things (a method that returns a proc), and are irrelevant to the current proposal.



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

[ruby-core:94920] [Ruby master Feature#16102] `Symbol#call`

[joshua.goodall]

Issue #16102 has been updated by inopinatus (Joshua GOODALL).


I propose this general solution.

    diff --git a/array.c b/array.c
    index 3717c3ff34..3809af01cf 100644
    --- a/array.c
    +++ b/array.c
    @@ -6988,6 +6988,7 @@ Init_Array(void)
         rb_define_method(rb_cArray, "dig", rb_ary_dig, -1);
         rb_define_method(rb_cArray, "sum", rb_ary_sum, -1);
     
    +    rb_define_method(rb_cArray, "splat", rb_yield_splat, 0);
         rb_define_method(rb_cArray, "deconstruct", rb_ary_deconstruct, 0);
     
         id_random = rb_intern("random");

then:

    arrays = [["a", "b"], ["c"], ["d", "e"]]

    arrays.splat(&:product)
    #=> [["a", "c", "d"], ["a", "c", "e"], ["b", "c", "d"], ["b", "c", "e"]]


----------------------------------------
Feature #16102: `Symbol#call`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16102#change-81534

* Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
Since symbols have a `to_proc` method, it is natural to expect that they would appear in a method chain like:

```ruby
:some_symbol.to_proc.call(...)
```

In fact, I have use cases like this:

```ruby
arrays = [["a", "b"], ["c"], ["d", "e"]]
hashes = [{"a" => 1}, {"b" => 2, "c" => 3}, {"d" => 4, "e" => 5}]

:product.to_proc.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["a", "c", "e"], ["b", "c", "d"], ["b", "c", "e"]]
:zip.to_proc.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["b", nil, "e"]]
:union.to_proc.(*arrays) # => ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
:merge.to_proc.(*hashes) # => {"a"=>1, "b"=>2, "c"=>3, "d"=>4, "e"=>5}
```

I request `Symbol#call` to be defined, which would implicitly call `to_proc` on the receiver and then the conventional `Proc#call` on the result. Then, I can do:

```ruby
:product.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["a", "c", "e"], ["b", "c", "d"], ["b", "c", "e"]]
:zip.(*arrays) # => [["a", "c", "d"], ["b", nil, "e"]]
:union.(*arrays) # => ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
:merge.(*hashes) # => {"a"=>1, "b"=>2, "c"=>3, "d"=>4, "e"=>5}
```

This would solve what proposals #6499, #6727, #7444, #8970, #11262 aim to do.

Notice that proposals #12115 and #15301 ask for `Symbol#call`, but they ask for different things (a method that returns a proc), and are irrelevant to the current proposal.



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