A short preface: I am writing in Ruby since 2004. For last 5 years I am also participating in language development, documenting new and old features, proposing some (several got accepted) and diving deep into weirdest mysteries of the language. So, I was pretty confident I’ve seen every technique for clean and DRY code with functional flavour. That was until today, my friend and fellow Rubyist Vladimir Ermilov discovered this:

I just discovered you can do this in Ruby pic.twitter.com/iK029ozz7Y — Lionka Panteleev (@adworse) October 18, 2019

Yup, this is a short, DRY, no-block-arg-names-repetition way to do this:

[ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. zip ([ 4 , 5 , 6 ]). map { | ary | ary . join ( ' ' ) }

….e.g. to pass additional argument to Symbol#to_proc . Works with any enumerable and any proc (including those produced by Symbol#to_proc and method references):

content = <<~ DATA name|John age|30 city|Nashville DATA content . each_line ( chomp: true ). each_with_object ( '|' ). map ( & :split ). to_h # => {"name"=>"John", "age"=>"30", "city"=>"Nashville"} jsons = [ '{"name":"John"}' , '{"name":"Amy"}' , '{"name":"Rajesh"}' ] # Using Ruby 2.7's method references: jsons . map ( & JSON . :parse ) # => [{"name"=>"John"}, {"name"=>"Amy"}, {"name"=>"Rajesh"}] jsons . each_with_object ( symbolize_names: true ). map ( & JSON . :parse ) # => [{:name=>"John"}, {:name=>"Amy"}, {:name=>"Rajesh"}]

Why is it cool?

I am unusually excited about this: there is a long-standing quest for combining implicit-argument blocks ( &:sym and obj.:method ) with additional details, e.g. to say something like:

numbers . map { | num | num % 10 }

…without repetition of |num| / num . This quest became somewhat of a holy grail for searching for new syntaxes, and led to proposing (and rejecting) things like

lines . map ( & :split . ( '|' )) # It could work by redefining Symbol#call, and using .call() → .() shortcut

…and eventually to Ruby 2.7’s “numbered block args”:

numbers . map { _1 % 10 }

…which, for me, always felt like an “orphan” feature, not leading to any updating of our understanding of language’s semantics and possibilities, just “being short” (some may say that’s the plus, though).

But it turns out you always could

numbers . each_with_object ( 10 ). map ( & :% )

…which could be neglected as being “longer” by character-count, yet somehow struck me as conceptually right.

How it works, and when it does not

Being curious, you may compare those two pieces of code:

[ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. each_with_object ( 4 ). map ( & : + ) # => [5, 6, 7] [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. zip ([ 4 , 4 , 4 ]). map ( & : + ) # ArgumentError (wrong number of arguments (given 0, expected 1))

What’s the difference, why one works and another not? Checked naively, they seem to produce exact same sequences:

[ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. each_with_object ( 4 ). to_a # => [[1, 4], [2, 4], [3, 4]] [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. zip ([ 4 , 4 , 4 ]). to_a # => [[1, 4], [2, 4], [3, 4]]

But the thing is, after each_with_object you have an Enumerator , which yields to the block two separate arguments, while result of zip yields two-element arrays as one argument. This is invisible in “non-lambda” procs (which unpack single array argument into multiple), but visible in lambda:

[ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. each_with_object ( 4 ). map ( &-> ( x , y ) { }) # works [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. zip ([ 4 , 4 , 4 ]). map ( &-> ( x , y ) { }) # ArgumentError (wrong number of arguments (given 1, expected 2))

…and result of Symbol#to_proc behaves like a lambda (no argument conversion):

: + . to_proc . call ( 1 , 2 ) # => 3 : + . to_proc . call ([ 1 , 2 ]) # ArgumentError # Though, it doesn't aknowledge it is: : + . to_proc . lambda? # => false

The only other methods that produce yielding-multiple-args Enumerator are, obviously Enumerable#each_with_index and Enumerable#reduce .

But…

Fixing Ruby

But we can do this:

module Enumerable def each_tuple return to_enum ( __method__ ) unless block_given? each { | item | yield ( * item ) } # unpacking possible array into several args end end

…and, suddenly, everything illuminated: