Issue #17097 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). IMHO we should just add `max_of` and `min_of`, like Crystal has. `map` in the name feels out of place here because this method does not return a new array, it's just execute the block and remember the max/min value returned by the block for all elements. ---------------------------------------- Feature #17097: `map_min`, `map_max` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17097#change-100778 * Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- `min`, `min_by`, `max`, `max_by` return the element that leads to the minimum or the maximum value, but I think it is as, or even more, frequent that we are interested in the minimum or the maximum value itself rather than the element. For example, to get the length of the longest string in an array, we do: ```ruby %w[aa b cccc dd].max_by(&:length).length # => 4 %w[aa b cccc dd].map(&:length).max # => 4 ``` I propose to have methods that return the minimum or the maximum value. Temporarily calling them `map_min`, `map_max`, they should work like this: ```ruby %w[aa b cccc dd].map_max(&:length) # => 4 ``` `map_min`, `map_max` are implementation-centered names, so perhaps better names should replace them, just like `yield_self` was replaced by `then`. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/