Re: semenatics of if/unless/while statement modifiers

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 = x
			blah(n)
		end
	end

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

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

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

-- 
--- SER

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