From: Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...>
Date: 2009-02-08T13:40:01+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:21925] Re: [Feature #1122] request for: Object#try

>>> Anyone has better name?

For me try's name is good but not perfect.

There are a few more options described at [1].  if_not_nil is one.
andand is one.

I'd probably prefer .try.method(args) to .try(:method, args) since it
reads and codes more like a normal method call.

I am assuming that try should protect against calling method on nil,
not protect against calling methods that don't exist as
instance_methods?  That would make sense as it would allow for
method_missing to define new methods on classes, etc.  I suppose you
could do both as separate methods, or have .try.method(args) do one
thing and .try(:method, args) do another.

One thing I "wish" were that you could do
nilorstring.try.a.b.c.d # that allowed sub methods.


re:
>foo.?bar(baz)
>as a syntax sugar to:
> foo.respond?(:bar) ? foo.bar(baz) : nil

One suggestion to a ruby quiz was the method name "_?" [2]
Maybe foo.?.bar(baz) could mean foo.try.bar(baz)?

Thanks for your work.
-=r

[1] http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/01/objectandand-objectme-in-ruby.html
[2] http://hobocentral.net/blog/2007/08/25/quiz/