"Useless syntax sugar": Numbered block parameters in Ruby

Re:"Useless syntax sugar": Numbered block parameters in Ruby by jonahx on Wednesday October 11, 2023 @02:56PM (#37848758)

> ghci> filter (\x -> (length x) > 2) ["a","bb","ccc","dddd"] ["ccc","dddd"]... I find the Haskell syntax concise and clear...

> ["a","bb","ccc","dddd"].filter &(2.method(:<) << :length.to_proc)

I can't imagine a stronger case for GP's thesis. The point-free ruby rewrite is so baroque and needlessly circuitous... the extra variable is a far lesser evil, and more concise:

    ["a","bb","ccc","dddd"].filter { |x| x.length > 2 }

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:"Useless syntax sugar": Numbered block parameters in Ruby by inopinatus on Thursday October 12, 2023 @12:15AM (#37853426)

my instinct is

    ["a","bb","ccc","dddd"].grep /.../

but then, I'm a recovering perl hacker

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:"Useless syntax sugar": Numbered block parameters in Ruby by jonahx on Thursday October 12, 2023 @01:25AM (#37853718)

Love it!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:"Useless syntax sugar": Numbered block parameters in Ruby by dragonwriter on Thursday October 12, 2023 @03:53AM (#37854556)

Yeah, mirroring the Haskell code, while possible in Ruby, is definitely not the best Ruby-aware approach, either for concision or clarity. The composability is available, but the problems where it is the best solution are different.

[ Parent | on HN ]