From: Kent Dahl <kentda+news@...>
Date: 2004-06-05T19:18:42+09:00
Subject: Re: Check assertion in Ruby

Michael Neumann wrote:
> Or even better combining both approaches:
> 
>    def check(a=nil, &block)
>      raise "check failed" unless (block ? block.call : a)
>    end
> 
> Wouldn't that make sense to add to module Kernel? Or maybe named as
> assert? 

I don't like unnecessary object construction, such as that Proc-wrapping.

def check(a=nil)
   raise "check failed" unless (block_given? ? yield(a) : a)
end

I'd also yield the given argument if both a block and an argument are 
supplied. It is nice to avoid an extra assignment line when doing larger 
checks:

check( my.insanely.long.chained.method.call(:with,:lots,:of,*arguments) 
){|i| (i > 64 && i < 91) || (i > 96 && i < 123) }

IMHO

-- 
(\[ Kent Dahl ]/)_    _~_    _____[ http://www.pvv.org/~kentda/ ]_____/~
  ))\_student_/((  \__d L b__/     Master of Science in Technology     )
( \__\_�|�_/__/ ) _)  Industrial economics and technology management (
  \____/_�_\____/ (____engineering.discipline_=_Computer::Technology___)