Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Stefan Kaes wrote:

> >  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

What can I say. Sorry for not replying quickly enough.

> > 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] ?

It's better in your case because Ruby does what you want to do and it's 
called a "if" and not a "and". I gave it to you because it's about as 
short as the code you wish would work in Ruby and because you don't seem 
to like using "and" as a conditional despite "and" meant to be a 
conditional.

> Too much noise caused by superflous keywords. For me.

An old RCR of mine proposed making "end" implicit just before a closing
parens. It was rejected in little time. In the light of this, if it's
really critical for you to get rid of superfluous keywords, switch to
Scheme or CommonLisp or even Tcl.

____________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard - t駘:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montr饌l QC Canada