From: "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Date: 2005-11-23T23:00:55+09:00
Subject: Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers

--nextPart1220927.iGz0OQYHkK
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 15:37, David A. Black wrote:
> Actually I meant what I wrote.  Since 1 is always true, there's no
> point ever testing it for truth.  (I purposely chose an example where
> you get the warning, which you don't if there's any point to the
> test.)

Yeah, but I think what he was getting at was:

	def foo x
		if n =3D x
			blah(n)
		end
	end

=2E.. which he'd like to be able to do without being told that he's made a=
=20
mistake.  Which he hasn't.  Hence, his request that the warning be reworded=
=20
to "might", rather than "should".

I think the point here is that the message that Ruby is giving is provably=
=20
wrong.  If Stefan wrote the above code, then Ruby is wrong to tell him that=
=20
he "should" be performing a comparison rather than an assignment.

At least, that's what I hear Stefan saying.

=2D-=20
=2D-- SER

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents,=20
more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.  On some=20
great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach=20
their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned=20
by a downright moron."        -  H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

--nextPart1220927.iGz0OQYHkK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDhHRoP0KxygnleI8RArKdAJ4peeQn0d4eaHfD20jeOLaqbN8BpQCeMxIc
SkCQEIyxTzVcjpxCAmSQTCs=
=kMVp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1220927.iGz0OQYHkK--