Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273)

Having never used VB, I had no idea it had a with. Well, then thats at
least some indication that the concept is semi-mainstream.

As for the blocks, I'm not saying that blocks are confusing, I'm
saying module_eval/class_eval/instance_eval are confusing for a
beginning user, especially when they usage is hidden. For instance:

def on_object(&block)
    Object.module_eval(&block)
end

on_object do
   MyConst = 8
end

That gets confusing for beginning users because the block has been
carried away and executed in a completely different context than it
was created. Normally, a block is executed in the context it was
created, since thats the whole point of blocks.

At any rate, it's entirely possible I'm underestimating people again.
I had a rough day doing IT work yesterday, and you know how that can
lower your faith in people's abilities. :)

 - Evan

On 2/7/06, James Britt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Evan Webb wrote:
> > I'm not sure we even need the 'with' syntax. Even if we do, it breaks
> > the programmers context in a way that we might not want to have to
> > explain constantly. I can just hear the questions now...
> >
> > "Why are my method calls inside a with being executed on the wrong object?"
> >
> > "Well, thats because with changes self for it's body, and so you have
> > to be careful what you call in there."
>
> VB users never seemed to have a problem with the concept of 'with', and
> I think it unlikely Ruby users would, either.
>
> >
> > repeat..
> >
> > While the more hardcore of us are use to using blocks to enter into
> > new and strange contexts (module_eval/class_eval/instance_eval oh
> > my!), pushing this to the normal user is not a decision that should be
> > made lightly.
>
>
> Using blocks *is* normal Ruby usage.
>
> I think you serous underestimate what people can understand and
> correctly use.
>
> James
>
>


--
When I do good, I feel good;  when I do bad, I feel bad,
and that is my religion.
    -- Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)