I know that this code may be not quite correct:
def print_string(&str)
puts str
end
print_string{"Abder-Rahman"}
But, when I run it, this is what I get:
#<Proc:0x03e25d98#r.rb:5>
What is this output?
That's the default string representation of a Proc object. Because "Abder-Rahman" is in braces, Ruby thinks you're defining a block. Did you mean to put str.call inside of your function definition? That should call your block and return the string expression you defined inside it.
The problem is that you've declared that the "print_string" method takes a block argument (confusingly named "str") and you simply print the proc itself. You'd probably like to call the given procedure to see the string value it returns:
def call_proc(&proc)
proc.call
end
call_proc { 'Foobar' }
# => "Foobar"
What you've discovered is the syntax sugar that if you decorate the last argument of a method definition with an ampersand & then it will be bound to the block argument to the method call. An alternative way of accomplishing the same task is as follows:
def call_proc2
yield if block_given?
end
call_proc2 { 'Example' }
# => 'Example'
Note also that procedures can be handled directly as objects by using Proc objects (or the "lambda" alias for the Proc constructor):
p1 = Proc.new { 'Foo' }
p1.call # => "Foo"
p2 = lambda { 'Bar' }
p2.call # => "Bar"
You're passing a block to the method, as denoted by the & prefix and how you're calling it. That block is then converted into a Proc internally.
puts str.call inside your method would print the string, although why you'd want to define the method this way is another matter.
See Proc:
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Proc.html
When the last argument of function/method is preceded by the & character, ruby expect a proc object. So that's why puts's output is what it is.
This blog has an article about the unary & operator.
Related
I'm unclear on why there is a need to pass block arguments when calling a function.
why not just pass in as function arguments and what happens to the block arguments, how are they passed and used?
m.call(somevalue) {|_k, v| v['abc'] = 'xyz'}
module m
def call ( arg1, *arg2, &arg3)
end
end
Ruby, like almost all mainstream programming languages, is a strict language, meaning that arguments are fully evaluated before being passed into the method.
Now, imagine you want to implement (a simplified version of) Integer#times. The implementation would look a little bit like this:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed
pred.my_times(action_to_be_executed)
end
end
3.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
0.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
-1.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
As you can see, 3.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, instead of thrice, as it should do. Also, 0.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, instead of not at all, as it should do, despite the fact that it returns in the second line of the method, and thus action_to_be_executed is never even evaluated. Even -1.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, despite that fact that it raises an ArgumentError exception as the very first thing in the method and thus the entire rest of the method body is never evaluated.
Why is that? Because Ruby is strict! Again, strict means that arguments are fully evaluated before being passed. So, what this means is that before my_times even gets called, the puts "Hello" is evaluated (which prints Hello to the standard output stream), and the result of that evaluation (which is just nil because Kernel#puts always returns nil) is passed into the method.
So, what we need to do, is somehow delay the evaluation of the argument. One way we know how to delay evaluation, is by using a method: methods are only evaluated when they are called.
So, we take a page out of Java's playbook, and define a Single Abstract Method Protocol: the argument that is being passed to my_each must be an object which implements a method with a specific name. Let's call it call, because, well, we are going to call it.
This would look a little bit like this:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed.call
pred.my_times(action_to_be_executed)
end
end
def (hello = Object.new).call
puts "Hello"
end
3.my_times(hello)
# Hello
# Hello
# Hello
0.my_times(hello)
-1.my_times(hello)
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
Nice! It works! The argument that is passed is of course still strictly evaluated before being passed (we can't change the fundamental nature of Ruby from within Ruby itself), but this evaluation only results in the object that is bound by the local variable hello. The code that we want to run is another layer of indirection away and will only be executed at the point where we actually call it.
It also has another advantage: Integer#times actually makes the index of the current iteration available to the action as an argument. This was impossible to implement with our first solution, but here we can do it, because we are using a method and methods can take arguments:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
__my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed)
end
protected
def __my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed, index = 0)
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed.call(index)
pred.__my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed, index + 1)
end
end
def (hello = Object.new).call(i)
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
3.my_times(hello)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
0.my_times(hello)
-1.my_times(hello)
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
However, this is not actually very readable. If you didn't want to give a name to this action that we are trying to pass but instead simply literally write it down inside the argument list, it would look something like this:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap do |obj|
def obj.call(i)
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
end)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
or on one line:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap do |obj| def obj.call; puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" end end)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
# or:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap {|obj| def obj.call; puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" end })
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
Now, I don't know about you, but I find that pretty ugly.
In Ruby 1.9, Ruby added Proc literals aka stabby lambda literals to the language. Lambda literals are a concise literal syntax for writing objects with a call method, specifically Proc objects with Proc#call.
Using lambda literals, and without any changes to our existing code, it looks something like this:
3.my_times(-> i { puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" })
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
This does not look bad!
When Yukihiro "matz" Matsumoto designed Ruby almost thirty years ago in early 1993, he did a survey of the core libraries and standard libraries of languages like Smalltalk, Scheme, and Common Lisp to figure out how such methods that take a piece of code as an argument are actually used, and he found that the overwhelming majority of such methods take exactly one code argument and all they do with that argument is call it.
So, he decided to add special language support for a single argument that contains code and can only be called. This argument is both syntactically and semantically lightweight, in particular, it looks syntactically exactly like any other control structure, and it is semantically not an object.
This special language feature, you probably guessed it, are blocks.
Every method in Ruby has an optional block parameter. I can always pass a block to a method. It's up to the method to do anything with the block. Here, for example, the block is useless because Kernel#puts doesn't do anything with a block:
puts("Hello") { puts "from the block" }
# Hello
Because blocks are not objects, you cannot call methods on them. Also, because there can be only one block argument, there is no need to give it a name: if you refer to a block, it's always clear which block because there can be only one. But, if the block doesn't have methods and doesn't have a name, how can we call it?
That's what the yield keyword is for. It temporarily "yields" control flow to the block, or, in other words, it calls the block.
With blocks, our solution would look like this:
class Integer
def my_times(&action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return enum_for(__callee__) unless block_given?
__my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed)
end
protected
def __my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed, index = 0)
return if zero?
yield index
pred.__my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed, index + 1)
end
end
3.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
0.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
-1.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
Okay, you might notice that I simplified a bit when I wrote above that the only thing you can do with a block is call it. There are two other things you can do with it:
You can check whether a block argument was passed using Kernel#block_given?. Since blocks are always optional, and blocks have no names, there must be a way to check whether a block was passed or not.
You can "roll up" a block (which is not an object and doesn't have a name) into a Proc object (which is an object) and bind it to a parameter (which gives it a name) using the & ampersand unary prefix sigil in the parameter list of the method. Now that we have an object, and a way to refer to it, we can store it in a variable, return it from a method, or (as we are doing here) pass it along as an argument to a different method, which otherwise wouldn't be possible.
There is also the opposite operation: with the & ampersand unary prefix operator, you can "unroll" a Proc object into a block in an argument list; this makes it so that the method behaves as if you had passed the code that is stored inside the Proc as a literal block argument to the method.
And there you have it! That's what blocks are for: a semantically and syntactically lightweight form of passing code to a method.
There are other possible approaches, of course. The approach that is closest to Ruby is probably Smalltalk. Smalltalk also has a concept called blocks (in fact, that is where Ruby got both the idea and the name from). Similarly to Ruby, Smalltalk blocks have a syntactically light-weight literal form, but they are objects, and you can pass more than one to a method. Thanks to Smalltalk's generally light-weight and simple syntax, especially the keyword method syntax which intersperses parts of the method name with the arguments, even passing multiple blocks to a method call is very concise and readable.
For example, Smalltalk actually does not have an if / then / else conditional expression, in fact, Smalltalk has no control structures at all. Everything is done with methods. So, the way that a conditional works, is that the two boolean classes TrueClass and FalseClass each have a method named ifTrue:ifFalse: which takes two block arguments, and the two implementations will simply either evaluate the first or the second block. For example, the implementation in TrueClass might look a little bit like this (note that Smalltalk has no syntax for classes or methods, instead classes and methods are created in the IDE by creating class objects and method objects via the GUI):
True>>ifTrue: trueBlock ifFalse: falseBlock
"Answer with the value of `trueBlock`."
↑trueBlock value
The corresponding implementation in FalseClass would then look like this:
FalseClass>>ifTrue: trueBlock ifFalse: falseBlock
"Answer with the value of `falseBlock`."
↑falseBlock value
And you would call it like this:
2 < 3 ifTrue: [ Transcript show: 'yes' ] ifFalse: [ Transcript show: 'no' ].
"yes"
4 < 3 ifTrue: [ Transcript show: 'yes' ] ifFalse: [ Transcript show: 'no' ].
"no"
In ECMAScript, you can simply use function definitions as expressions, and there is also lightweight syntax for functions.
In the various Lisps, code is just data, and data is code, so you can just pass the code as an argument as data, then inside the function, treat that data as code again.
Scala has call-by-name parameters which are only evaluated when you use their name, and they are evaluated every time you use their name. It would look something like this:
implicit class IntegerTimes(val i: Int) extends AnyVal {
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def times(actionToBeExecuted: => Unit): Unit = {
if (i < 0) throw new Error()
if (i == 0) () else { actionToBeExecuted; (i - 1).times(actionToBeExecuted) }
}
}
3.times { println("Hello") }
// Hello
// Hello
// Hello
Example: LinkedList printing method.
For this object, you will find a printing method using block, proc, and lambda.
It is not clear to me what the advantages/disadvantages are (if any).
Thank you
What is a LinkedList?
A LinkedList is a node that has a specific value attached to it (which is sometimes called a payload), and a link to another node (or nil if there is no next item).
class LinkedListNode
attr_accessor :value, :next_node
def initialize(value, next_node = nil)
#value = value
#next_node = next_node
end
def method_print_values(list_node)
if list_node
print "#{list_node.value} --> "
method_print_values(list_node.next_node)
else
print "nil\n"
return
end
end
end
node1 = LinkedListNode.new(37)
node2 = LinkedListNode.new(99, node1)
node3 = LinkedListNode.new(12, node2)
#printing the linked list through a method defined within the scope of the class
node3.method_print_values(node3)
#---------------------------- Defining the printing method through a BLOCK
def block_print_value(list_node, &block)
if list_node
yield list_node
block_print_value(list_node.next_node, &block)
else
print "nil\n"
return
end
end
block_print_value(node3) { |list_node| print "#{list_node.value} --> " }
#---------------------------- Defining the printing method through a PROC
def proc_print_value(list_node, callback)
if list_node
callback.call(list_node) #this line invokes the print function defined below
proc_print_value(list_node.next_node, callback)
else
print "nil\n"
end
end
proc_print_value(node3, Proc.new {|list_node| print "#{list_node.value} --> "})
#---------------------------- Defining the printing method through a LAMBDA
def lambda_print_value(list_node, callback)
if list_node
callback.call(list_node) #this line invokes the print function defined below
lambda_print_value(list_node.next_node, callback)
else
print "nil\n"
end
end
lambda_print_value(node3, lambda {|list_node| print "#{list_node.value} --> "})
#---------------------------- Defining the printing method outside the class
def print_values(list_node)
if list_node
print "#{list_node.value} --> "
print_values(list_node.next_node)
else
print "nil\n"
return
end
end
print_values(node3)
Examples display how to use different things to do the same. So, there is no principal difference between them in this context:
my_proc = Proc.new { |list_node| print "#{list_node.value} --> " }
node3.block_print_values(node3, &my_proc)
node3.proc_print_value(node3, my_proc)
node3.lambda_print_value(node3, my_proc)
Also, there is possible to define a method by using any of them:
define_method(:my_method, p, &proc { puts p })
my_method 'hello' #=> hello
define_method(:my_method, p, &-> { puts p })
my_method 'hello' #=> hello
But Proc, Lambda, block are not the same. Firstly, need a bit more display how to works magic &. The great article can help with that:
&object is evaluated in the following way:
if object is a block, it converts the block into a simple proc.
if object is a Proc, it converts the object into a block while preserving the lambda? status of the object.
if object is not a Proc, it first calls #to_proc on the object and then converts it into a block.
But this does not show the differences between them. So, now let go to the ruby source:
Proc objects are blocks of code that have been bound to a set of local variables. Once bound, the code may be called in different contexts and still access those variables.
And
+lambda+, +proc+ and Proc.new preserve the tricks of a Proc object given by & argument.
lambda(&lambda {}).lambda? #=> true
proc(&lambda {}).lambda? #=> true
Proc.new(&lambda {}).lambda? #=> true
lambda(&proc {}).lambda? #=> false
proc(&proc {}).lambda? #=> false
Proc.new(&proc {}).lambda? #=> false
Proc created as:
VALUE block = proc_new(klass, FALSE);
rb_obj_call_init(block, argc, argv);
return block;
When lambda:
return proc_new(rb_cProc, TRUE);
Both are Proc. In this case, the difference is just in TRUE or FALSE. TRUE, FALSE - check the number of parameters passed when called.
So, lambda is like more strict Proc:
is_proc = !proc->is_lambda;
Summary of Lambda vs Proc:
Lambdas check the number of arguments, while procs do not.
Return within the proc would exit the method from where it is called.
Return within a lambda would exit it from the lambda and the method would continue executing.
Lambdas are closer to a method.
Blocks: They are called closures in other languages, it is a way of grouping code/statements. In ruby single line blocks are written in {} and multi-line blocks are represented using do..end.
Block is not an object and can not be saved in a variable. Lambda and Proc are both an object.
So, let do small code test based on this answer:
# ruby 2.5.1
user system total real
0.016815 0.000000 0.016815 ( 0.016823)
0.023170 0.000001 0.023171 ( 0.023186)
0.117713 0.000000 0.117713 ( 0.117775)
0.217361 0.000000 0.217361 ( 0.217388)
This shows that using block.call is almost 2x slower than using yield.
Thanks, #engineersmnky, for good references in comments.
Proc is an object wrapper over block. Lambda basically is a proc with different behavior.
AFAIK pure blocks are more rational to use compared to procs.
def f
yield 123
end
Should be faster than
def g(&block)
block.call(123)
end
But proc can be passed on further.
I guess you should find some articles with performance comparison on the toppic
IMO, your block_print_value method is poorly designed/named, which makes it impossible to answer your question directly. From the name of the method, we would expect that the method "prints" something, but the only printing is the border condition, which does a
print "nil\n"
So, while I would strongly vote against using this way to print the tree, it doesn't mean that the whole idea of using a block for the printing problem is bad.
Since your problem looks like a programming assignment, I don't post a whole solution, but give a hint:
Replace your block_print_value by a, say block_visit_value, which does the same like your current method, but doesn't do any printing. Instead, the "else" part could also invoke the block to let it do the printing.
I'm sure that you will see afterwards the advantage of this method. If not, come back here for a discussion.
At a high level, procs are methods that can be stored inside variables like so:
full_name = Proc.new { |first,last| first + " " + last }
I can call this in two ways, using the bracket syntax followed by the arguments I want to pass to it or use the call method to run the proc and pass in arguments inside of parentheses like so:
p full_name.call("Daniel","Cortes")
What I did with the first line above is create a new instance of Proc and assigned it to a variable called full_name. Procs can take a code block as a parameter so I passed it two different arguments, arguments go inside the pipes.
I can also make it print my name five times:
full_name = Proc.new { |first| first * 5 }
The block I was referring to is called a closure in other programming languages. Blocks allow you to group statements together and encapsulate behavior. You can create blocks with curly braces or do...end syntax.
Why use Procs?
The answer is Procs give you more flexibility than methods. With Procs you can store an entire set of processes inside a variable and then call the variable anywhere else in your program.
Similar to Procs, Lambdas allow you to store functions inside a variable and call the method from other parts of the program. So really the same code I had above can be used like so:
full_name = lambda { |first,last| first + " " + last }
p full_name["daniel","cortes"]
So what is the difference between the two?
There are two key differences in addition to syntax. Please note that the differences are subtle, even to the point that you may never even notice them while programming.
The first key difference is that Lambdas count the arguments you pass to them whereas Procs do not. For example:
full_name = lambda { |first,last| first + " " + last }
p full_name.call("Daniel","Cortes")
The code above works, however, if I pass it another argument:
p full_name.call("Daniel","Abram","Cortes")
The application throws an error saying that I am passing in the wrong number of arguments.
However, with Procs it will not throw an error. It simply looks at the first two arguments and ignores anything after that.
Secondly, Lambdas and Procs have different behavior when it comes to returning values from methods, for example:
def my_method
x = lambda { return }
x.call
p "Text within method"
end
If I run this method, it prints out Text within method. However, if we try the same exact implementation with a Proc:
def my_method
x = Proc.new { return }
x.call
p "Text within method"
end
This will return a nil value.
Why did this occur?
When the Proc saw the word return it exited out of the entire method and returned a nil value. However, in the case of the Lambda, it processed the remaining part of the method.
Can someone explain why this:
def do_something str
str = "bar"
end
str_main = "foo"
do_something str_main
puts str_main
displays foo?
And this:
def do_something str
str.capitalize!
end
str_main = "foo"
do_something str_main
puts str_main
displays Foo?
Because of the way Ruby passes arguments.
When the method is being called, you have two references, str_main and str, to the same object "foo".
In the first example, when you use str = "bar", you are just changing what the str reference points to. So now you have str_main -> "foo" and str -> "bar". Therefore, the original object is not changed.
In the second example, you didn't change the str reference and changed the string in place with a mutator method, thus changing the same object that str_main points to.
The exclamation mark or bang operator modifies the original value. It is a destructive method. For example, let's say you had a string
string = "hi";
If you call the upcase method, you will get the following
string.upcase
=> "HI"
However, if you call string again, you will get the initial value.
string
=> "hi"
Now, let's say you use the destructive method upcase!
string.upcase!
=> "HI"
Now, if you call string again, you will see that the value was mutated.
string
=> "HI"
In Ruby, references are passed by value. So, a reference to str_main is passed to method do_something, a copy of reference is present in variable str.
This, however, does not mean that value that is referred to by both variables also has been copied around - there is still a single copy of referred to value, which is the string defined in Main.
Hence, when you assign a new value to str, this does not alter the value of str_main. However, when you modify the value that is referred by str, its changes are visibble outside.
All ruby methods return the last thing evaluated. However, object assignment stays within the scope of the current code block. Assigning str_main to a new value within a method will not affect str_main, unless it was an instance variable (#str_main). Doing such allows you to reassign an object across scopes, or depths, of your program. This is why your first method outputs 'foo' instead of 'bar'.
Now, the second example. #capitalize is a method called on a string object. It returns a new String instance, where its value is original object capitalized.
string = 'foobar'
string.capitalize # => 'Foobar'
puts string # => 'foobar'
Notice how string is only modified temporarily, and when called again it is back to normal.
Many methods in ruby have counterparts ending in !. This convention is the same as: object = object.some_method. Instead of creating a new instance of an object, these methods edit the original object's value. In the case of #capitalize!, the string is capitalized and modified for future calls.
string = 'foo'
string.capitalize! # => 'Foo'
puts string # => 'Foo'
Back to your second example. Using the #capitalize! method within the scope of do_something allows you to modify the str_main object. In a similar way to making str_main an instance variable.
I saw this code for a method same as each, except it receives a block to run some test against every item:
def every?(&predicate)
predicate = lambda { |item| item } if predicate.nil?
each do |item|
return false if !predicate.call(item)
end
true
end
Why is there a & in the parameter, and what does it do? What are the uses of it?
Sometimes in parameter lists you'll see something like
def foo(&block)
logic_with block
end
This just means that argument is expecting a block - and in your example.
&predicate just means passing a block as a parameter, which we're assigning to a local variable predicate
You can get a good idea of this from the fact that if predicate is nil the first line of the method assigns a new lamda to the predicate variable.
For further reading here's a good posts on blocks, procs and lambdas: http://www.robertsosinski.com/2008/12/21/understanding-ruby-blocks-procs-and-lambdas/
EDITED per sawa's explanation below.
My take was you wanted the simple explanation that if you see & in this context it means a block is expected.
If you want to know specifically what the & operator itself actually does there's a good blog post here: http://ablogaboutcode.com/2012/01/04/the-ampersand-operator-in-ruby/
As sawa mentions it's very similar to calling to_proc on the incoming block. From the post I linked to, in more detail:
if object is a block, it converts the block into a simple proc.
if object is a Proc, it converts the object into a block while preserving the lambda? status of the object.
if object is not a Proc, it first calls #to_proc on the object and then converts it into a block.
The two operators * and & swap Ruby objects and non-objects.
The operator * prepended to a list of comma-separated objects (which is not an object) converts it into an array (which is an object).
*("foo", "bar", "baz") # => ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
The operator * prepended to an object converts it into an array by applying to_a, and then into a list of comma-separated objects.
*["foo", "bar", "baz"] # => ("foo", "bar", "baz")
*nil # => *[] # => ()
The operator & prepended to a block (which is not an object) converts it into a proc (which is an object).
&{|e| puts e} # => ->(e){puts e}
The operator & prepended to an object converts it into a proc by applying to_proc, and then into a block.
&->(e){puts e} # => {|e| puts e}
&:foo # => &->(e){e.foo} # => {|e| e.foo}
When you have a & in an argument position, the & is appended to a block, so the third case above applies. The block becomes a proc.
In the context of a method definition, putting an ampersand in front of the last parameter indicates that a method may take a block and gives us a name to refer to this block within the method body.
I often refer to this post when I get confused.
Taken from Programming ruby 1.9 book:
def my_while(cond, &body)
while cond.call
body.call
end
end
a=0
my_while -> { a < 3 } do
puts a
a += 1
end
produces:
0
1
2
The method expects an explicit parameter cond, and this "condition" is assumed to be a lambda/proc (the assumption is made by relying on cond.call to succeed) and has to be passed to the method my_while explicitly. The & syntax captures a method's block (if present) in a variable by implicitly converting it to a Proc object (see 'The ampersand').
Blocks are not real objects in Ruby and thus have to be converted by using the ampersand syntax. Once the block is bound to a Proc, you can send the call message on it as on any other proc/lambda.
The -> syntax is short for lambda, which converts a block to a Proc object (explicitly). There is also a slight difference between using lambda and Proc.new. Again, the wikibook:
Actually, there are two slight differences between lambda and Proc.new.
First, argument checking. The Ruby documentation for lambda states: Equivalent to Proc.new, except the resulting Proc objects check the number of parameters passed when called.
Second, there is a difference in the way returns are handled from the Proc. A return from Proc.new returns from the enclosing method (acting just like a return from a block, more on this later):
def try_ret_procnew
ret = Proc.new { return "Baaam" }
ret.call
"This is not reached"
end
# prints "Baaam"
puts try_ret_procnew
While return from lambda acts more conventionally, returning to its caller:
def try_ret_lambda
ret = lambda { return "Baaam" }
ret.call
"This is printed"
end
# prints "This is printed"
puts try_ret_lambda
With this in light, I would recommend using lambda instead of Proc.new, unless the behavior of the latter is strictly required. In addition to being way cooler a whopping two characters shorter, its behavior is less surprising.
The piece -> { a < 3 } is a shortcut for a lambda term (which was introduced with ruby 1.9). This is the first parameter passed to your method (i.e. cond) while the block afterwards is assigned to body. The lambda is then executed inside your method via cond.call.