Prototype higher order function to compose lambdas in Ruby. Result of working with Matt Wynne on a means of wrapping filters in Cucumber (Ruby).

composer.rb

require 'wrong/adapters/rspec'

# (apply comp fns) in clojure

module Composer
  def compose((*rest, last))
    last ||= ->(x){x}
    rest_reversed = rest.reverse_each

    lambda do |*args|
      rest_reversed.reduce(last[*args]) {|result, fn| fn[result]}
    end
  end

  module_function :compose
end

describe Composer do
  describe ".compose" do
    it "returns identity with no fns" do
      empty = Composer.compose([])
      assert { empty.call(3) == 3 }
    end

    it "composes with 1 fns" do
      double = ->(x) { x + x }
      composed_double = Composer.compose([double])
      assert { composed_double.call(3) == 6 }
    end

    it "composes with 2 fns" do
      double = ->(x) { x + x }
      square = ->(x) { x * x }
      square_double = Composer.compose([square, double])
      assert { square_double.call(3) == 36 }
    end

    it "composes with 3 fns" do
      double = ->(x) { x * 2 }
      triple = ->(x) { x * 3 }
      square = ->(x) { x * x }
      square_double_triple = Composer.compose([square, double, triple])
      assert { square_double_triple.call(3) == 18*18 }
    end

    it "composes with no-arg fn at end" do
      double = ->(x) { x * 2 }
      triple = ->(x) { x * 3 }
      square = ->(x) { x * x }
      three = -> (){3}
      square_double_triple = Composer.compose([square, double, triple, three])
      assert { square_double_triple.call == 18*18 }
    end
  end
end

(Although it would be better to precompute rest.reverse before returning the lambda.)

Oh, and @threedaymonk wisely suggests achieving an rfold with reverse_each.inject instead of reverse.inject, which is better all round.

I didn't know about Facets. Facets contains a compose method on Proc, but nothing that works on a collection of procs like the clojure one does. I've refactored this code us use the Facets Proce#compose. It's simpler but it would still be nice to see it on an Array I think.

See https://gist.github.com/mattwynne/6811764

@tomstuart: updated with suggestions from you and @threedaymonk.

@mattwynne WDYT?

@dchelimsky Your changes don’t seem to incorporate @threedaymonk’s suggestion of using #reverse_each, which is preferable to #reverse since it doesn’t involve allocating a new array.

@tomstuart right you are - fixed