[ruby-talk:01121] Re: The value of while...

Yukihiro Matsumoto writes:
> 
> In message "[ruby-talk:01119] Re: The value of while..."
>     on 00/01/12, Clemens Hintze <[e-mail]> writes:

[...]

> 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?

No! It is fine as it is :-)

[...]

> |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. :-)

Ouch!!! Don't beat me so hard ;-) (have you seen the ';-)))' at the
end of that paragraph?) :-)))

BTW: Unfortunately there are some Pythonees that already consider Ruby
as kind of bastard whose father was Perl, but whose mother is
unknown. I have already tried to discuss with them, but to no avail
:-(

They have had only a glance to Ruby, recognized the embedded regex
syntax, see the not-so-small similarities with Perl and damn it
therefore for eternity. What a pity for them!!! ;-)))))

>  matz.

\cle