if (cond) {meth this; func that} #(2)
how about:
(puts ‘this’; puts ‘that’) if true
cheers
Simon
On 2/3/06, Kroeger, Simon (ext) [email protected] wrote:
if (cond) {meth this; func that} #(2)
how about:
(puts ‘this’; puts ‘that’) if true
I’ll chime in and say that I also don’t like the “;;” idea.
I’ve always thought that parens could be used better, so I like
Simon’s suggestion. In fact, if I were designing a language from
scratch, I’d use parens differently for method calls.
Instead of
calculate_average(19, sum(4, 7), 3)
I’d make it
calculate_average 19 (sum 4 7) 3
Parens would only be used to group method names with arguments when
there is more than one method call on the same line. Commas aren’t
even necessary. Of course this is too drastic of a change to make to
Ruby at this point.
if (cond) {meth this; func that} #(2)
how about:
(puts ‘this’; puts ‘that’) if true
Thanks for the suggestion. That may be a good
solution for this particular case. But, how about
if condy then pet bush else bash him end #(3)
? Well, I think our main point is not how we can
come up with a nice looking construct for each case,
but what normal, regular constracts look like.
Regards,
Ryo