From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-01-12T05:20:01-06:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:01131] Re: The value of while...

matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

> Telling use of void value expression has benefit, I think.  But there
> may be better message for the error.

My point was simply that they don't _have_ to be void -- there may be
value in them returning a value.

> Same policy applies here.  
> 
> |  class Dave
> |  end
> 
> is more beautiful (from my view :-), and traditional than 
> 
> |  Dave = Class.new {
> |         }
> 
> It's more important than being minimal.

I wasn't advocating changing the class definition syntax--I agree with
what you say. I was just saying that if

  class Dave
  end

_were_ to return a Dave, then I could write

  Dave = ( class Dave
           end
         )

and from that I could explain to folks better why class definitions
aren't definitions at all, buy rather recipes.

> Making a class difinition return the class, a module definition return
> the module, are possible.  But since it's hard to implement unbound
> method (Method is a method bound to a receiver), def cannot return
> Method objects.

True enough,

> |(if this makes no sense, please forgive me - it's 3am and I'm typing
> |one-handed with a teething baby on my shoulder!)
> 
> Oh, mine is bit older(2) playing with a trackball.

Aren't there child labor laws in Japan? ;-)


Dave