Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Stefan Kaes wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I find it rather inelegant to be forced into writing
>>  if x = options[:x]
>>    f(x)
>>  end
>>instead of
>> f(x) if x=options[:x]
>>    
>>
>
>You're not "forced" to do it like that.
>
>You can do it this way:
>
>  x=options[:x] and f(x)
>  
>
We had that one covered already. In 
http://ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/6715

>And you can also do it this way:
>
>  x=options[:x]; f(x) if x
>  
>
How's that better than  f(x) if x = options[:x] ?

>Which brings me to the point that just because an expression has a
>then..end or do..end block doesn't mean it has to be spread over three 
>lines, and just because a line has got a semicolon doesn't mean it has to 
>be spread over two lines. Resist the indentation nazis.
>  
>
Too much noise caused by superflous keywords. For me.

-- stefan