From: "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Date: 2004-10-05T06:59:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Too Many Ways?

On Monday 04 October 2004 04:06 am, Brian Candler wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 12:29:39PM +0900, trans.  (T. Onoma) wrote:
> > But since then, I've completely flipped positions, and more in concert
> > with the ideas of duck-typing, I wish all arguments worked like &block.
> > e.g.
> >
> >    def foo(a, b)
> >      "#{a}#{b}"
> >    end
> >
> >    foo(1)  #=> "1"
> >
> > Just as block is nil in the above, so would  b  here. Likewise:
> >
> >   foo(1,2,3)  #=> "12"
> >
> > and 3 would be ignored.
>
> Those semantics would be more consistent with yield and blk.call, and
> generally I applaud anything which improves consistency:
>
>   def foo
>     yield 1
>   end
>
>   foo {|a,b| p a,b}   # prints 1, nil
>
>   def bar(&blk)
>     blk.call(1)
>   end
>
>   bar {|a,b| p a,b}   # prints 1, nil
>
> However I tend towards the other position: that both the above examples
> should raise an "incorrect number of arguments" exception. It tends to trap
> errors sooner, rather than later. But I don't feel too strongly about which
> way it's done; I feel much more strongly that it should be consistent!

matz, I'm curious. How do you feel about this?

T.