The fact that this exists is a tribute to consistency. I feel like this may actually be a useful thing in certain generic programming scenarios, but for the life of me, in my current sleep-deprived state I can't think what those scenarios might look like. Any thoughts?

Like, I feel like this would make a good default argument in certain cases in order to avoid a special case.

It's another way of writing while true do ... end, but whether or not that is useful is questionable at best.

It's neat, but I'm not sure what I'd use it for. The other thing I'd call a null enumerator, [].each, I can come up with use cases for as null object. But the fact that loop is infinite and constant and gives you nil makes it seem pretty useless to me. I hope to be proven wrong, though. :)

It is not the same, because while does not give you an Enumerator.

Yeah, I'm just thinking that there may be certain scenarios where "always" makes sense instead of "never" as the default.

Maybe there's some useful way to use it with zip.

> ('a'..'z').zip(loop).to_h
# => {"a"=>nil, "b"=>nil, "c"=>nil, "d"=>nil, "e"=>nil, "f"=>nil, "g"=>nil, "h"=>nil, "i"=>nil, "j"=>nil, "k"=>nil, "l"=>nil, "m"=>nil, "n"=>nil, "o"=>nil, "p"=>nil, "q"=>nil, "r"=>nil, "s"=>nil, "t"=>nil, "u"=>nil, "v"=>nil, "w"=>nil, "x"=>nil, "y"=>nil, "z"=>nil}

It's certainly useful to have an infinite, constant enumerator, but I think the cases where you want it to be constantly nil are going to be rare.

Incidentally, what's the easiest way to make a constant enumerator, one that always returns, say 5? Off the top of my head, the best I've got is:

Enumerator.new do |y|
  loop do
    y.yield 5
  end
end

but that seems like way too much code for something so fundamental.

Actually, @avdi, loop breaks the consistency a bit because it doesn't yield anything to its block (that is, its block takes arity 0), and so its enumerator should return 0 things each time it's called. But since that doesn't quite make sense, it returns nil.

But if it did somehow return 0 things, this would be a much nicer way to create a constant enumerator:

loop.with_object(5)

Unfortunately, loop.with_object(5).first == [nil, 5].

Interestingly, @Peeja, at least next_values agrees with you:

e.next_values                   # => []

@Peeja

[5].cycle

Nice.

@AaronLasseigne Ooh, very nice.

@avdi That's interesting. It's a shame #with_object doesn't use use #next_values. I wonder if Ruby would accept a patch for it…