• colonial@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It wouldn’t be as relevant, since passing a function or method instead of a closure is much easier in Rust - you can just name it, while Ruby requires you to use the method method.

      So instead of .map(|res| res.unwrap()) you can do .map(Result::unwrap) and it’ll Just Work™.

        • colonial@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well, that’s to be expected - the implementation of map expects a function that takes ownership of its inputs, so you get a type mismatch.

          If you really want to golf things, you can tack your own map_ref (and friends) onto the Iterator trait. It’s not very useful - the output can’t reference the input - but it’s possible!

          I imagine you could possibly extend this to a combinator that returns a tuple of (Input, ref_map'd output) to get around that limitation, although I can’t think of any cases where that would actually be useful.

      • V H@lemmy.stad.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In the case of your example we’d do .map(&:unwrap) in Ruby (if unwrap was a method we’d actually want to call)

        Notably, these are not the cases _1 and _2 etc are for. They are there for the cases that are not structurally “call this method on the single argument to the block” e.g. .map{ _1 + _2 } or .map { x.foo(_1) }

        (_1 is reasonable, because iterating over an enumerable sequence makes it obvious what it is; _1 and _2 combined is often reasonable, because e.g. if we iterate over a key, value enumerable, such as what you get from enumerating a Hash, it’s obvious what you get; if you find yourself using _3 or above, you’re turning to the dark side and should rethink your entire life)