[#1026] Is this a bug? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
18 messages
2000/01/03
[#1053] rand() / drand48() — ts <decoux@...>
11 messages
2000/01/05
[#1055] Re: rand() / drand48()
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2000/01/05
[#1061] Re: rand() / drand48()
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
2000/01/07
Hi,
[#1067] Here docs not skipping leading spaces — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
5 messages
2000/01/08
[#1083] YADQ (Yet Another Dumb Question) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
12 messages
2000/01/10
[#1084] Infinite loop — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
17 messages
2000/01/11
[#1104] The value of while... — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
24 messages
2000/01/11
[#1114] Re: The value of while...
— Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
2000/01/12
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[#1128] Re: The value of while... — David Suarez de Lis <excalibor@...>
Hi all,
1 message
2000/01/12
[#1133] Re: Class variables... — David Suarez de Lis <excalibor@...>
Hi there,
2 messages
2000/01/12
[#1158] Is this expected behavior? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
6 messages
2000/01/21
[#1172] Re: Possible bug in ruby-man-1.4 — Huayin Wang <wang@...>
> |Well, I guess it comes down to what you mean by an integer
10 messages
2000/01/24
[#1177] Re: Possible bug in ruby-man-1.4
— Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
2000/01/25
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[#1188] Enumerable and index — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
5 messages
2000/01/27
[#1193] Semantics of chomp/chop — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
7 messages
2000/01/28
[#1197] Question about 'open' — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
8 messages
2000/01/30
[ruby-talk:01120] Re: The value of while...
From:
matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date:
2000-01-12 08:18:37 UTC
List:
ruby-talk #1120
In message "[ruby-talk:01119] Re: The value of while..."
on 00/01/12, Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@gmx.net> writes:
|> Hmm, but it's a attribute of the statement which cannot be treated by
| ^^^^^^^^^
|Perhaps that is the reason of confusion, IMHO. 'while' should be
|considered as statement, not as expression! Dave is right here, to be
|orthogonal 'while' should also return a value as every expression do!
In Ruby's syntax, statement is just a special case of a expression
which cannot appear as a argument (e.g. multiple assignment).
Currently, Ruby's expression may or may not return value. The parser
raises error if the program is taking the value from an obvious
non-value-returning expression.
If every expression must have value by definition, it's OK for me to
call non-value-returning expressions as statements, but must it?
|> `break' returning is as interesting as `break' with the label to exit.
|> I couldn't decide.
|
|What about to introduce both? :-)))) If you cannot decide ... take
|both ;-))))
Taking that strategy, Ruby will grow into Perl sooner or later.
We should think one step smarter. :-)
matz.