Issue #8421 has been updated by alexbarret (Alexandre Barret). jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) wrote in #note-5:
`find_map` seems like a bad name as there is no map. map implies calling the same function over all elements in a collection, and in this case, there would be a single element (or none if nothing was found). Combining `find` and `then` seems like the simplest way now if you don't want to use `break`:
This is a good point. I always thought map was the action of transforming an element but it does have a implicit reference to an array or a collection.
```ruby emails.find{ pattern.match(it) }&.then{ it[:identifier] } ```
Personally, I would use the following approach is I think it is clearer:
```ruby if match = emails.find{ pattern.match(it) } match[:identifier] end ```
The code aboce doesn't work ^. `match` variable assigned is an email string not the matches found from the email. We implicitly thought that `find` was returning the matches not the item iterated over. ---------------------------------------- Feature #8421: add Enumerable#find_map and Enumerable#find_all_map https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8421#change-107329 * Author: Hanmac (Hans Mackowiak) * Status: Feedback ---------------------------------------- currently if you have an Enumerable and you want to return the return value of #find you need eigther: (o = enum.find(block) && block.call(o)) || nil or enum.inject(nil) {|ret,el| ret || block.call(el)} neigher of them may be better than an directly maked method same for #find_all_map enum.lazy.map(&:block).find_all{|el| el} it may work but it is not so good -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/