Implement Enumerable#slice_after #3351
Conversation
| raise ArgumentError, "wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)" | ||
| when [true, false] | ||
| block = Proc.new { |elem| pattern === elem } | ||
| end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might I suggest the following instead:
if pattern_given && block_given?
raise ArgumentError, "cannot pass both pattern and block"
elsif pattern_given
block = Proc.new { |elem| pattern === elem }
elsif block_given?
# use given block
else
raise ArgumentError, "wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)"
endI think we should avoid allocating a bunch of unnecessary Arrays if we can (it seems like it would be a performance hit), and I think my example is still just as readable, if not a little more so. The example I gave could be collapsed a bit more into nested ifs, but I care less about that difference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alright. How about this:
raise ArgumentError, "cannot pass both pattern and block" if pattern_given && block_given?
raise ArgumentError, "wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)" if !pattern_given && !block_given?
block = Proc.new { |elem| pattern === elem } if pattern_given
# rest of code
| @@ -160,6 +160,28 @@ def slice_before(arg = undefined, &block) | |||
| end | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| def slice_after(pattern = undefined, &block) | |||
| pattern_given = !(undefined.equal? pattern) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
!undefined.equal?(pattern) is more natural.
jsyeo
force-pushed
the
slice-after
branch
2 times, most recently
from
10f8afd
to
0cf5e0b
Compare
| pattern_given = !undefined.equal?(pattern) | ||
| raise ArgumentError, "cannot pass both pattern and block" if pattern_given && block_given? | ||
| raise ArgumentError, "wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)" if !pattern_given && !block_given? | ||
| block = Proc.new { |elem| pattern === elem } if pattern_given |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably should've been more clear with this (my bad), I meant whitespace between every line, not just the one preceding Enumerator.new do ...
|
@yorickpeterse I've added the newlines. 😄 |
Now that we have the specs for Enumerable#slice_after, we can implement it!
I hope I didn't confuse anyone with the crazy case when usage. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it's more readable than a bunch of
ifs andnil?s.