[#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:01136] Re: The value of while...
From:
matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date:
2000-01-13 16:55:09 UTC
List:
ruby-talk #1136
Hi,
In message "[ruby-talk:01131] Re: The value of while..."
on 00/01/12, Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> writes:
|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.
I get it now. At present, 'void expressions' are ones introduced by
the reserved words listed below:
return
break
next
redo
retry
while
until
class
module
def
Among them, expressions to switch control flow (return, break, next,
redo, retry) cannot have value anyway.
I can't think of proper value for `while' and `until', unless `break
with value' is introduced. pending.
`class' and `module' can return their newly defined structure. It may
be good idea, iff it is consistent with the return value of `def'.
`def' is more difficult, because of implementation reason, we cannot
have so-called unbound method object in Ruby. A Method object is a
method bound to the certain receiver. It had been discussed in
Japanese speaking list, but we couldn't find any good idea.
In conclusion, if we can find proper return value for `def', I'll
change expressions `class', `module', and 'def' to return values.
Otherwise remain as they are.
I have no idea about `while' and `until' to return value, yet.
matz.