[evjan]

‘it’ is a welcome addition!

[ilvez]

Truly is, much nicer than that lonely `_1`

[BoingBoomTschak]

I'd have thought allowing _ as a synonym for _1 would have been more aesthetically consistent. That's the path I went with when designing my CL #λ reader macro, personally.

[rubyfan]

_2 can be as bad as _1

[JasserInicide]

I don't understand the point of it when the `.map(&:upcase)` syntax is shorter. This just seems like yet another syntactic sugar Rubyism that doesn't really add anything.

If it's an alternative to the `|x|` syntax when using only one block variable, then I like that.

[Trasmatta]

`arr.map { it.thing.blah.stuff }`

The `&:` doesn't work in that context

[ilvez]

Not to point any fingers, but shows that the previous commenter have not struggled with this :)

&: is very nice, but not enough.

[graypegg]

That only works when calling a method on the things you’re iterating thru, it is a replacement for the single variable block example you gave there

[ciconia]

Don't say that word!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZvsGdJP3ng

[zachrose]

Does `it` conflict with Rspec's `it`? Surely they've thought of this, but to my eye it looks like it would get confusing.

[prh8]

Nope it doesn’t, they did take that into account during development.