From: Joao Pedrosa <joaopedrosa@...>
Date: 2005-02-14T09:19:41+09:00
Subject: Re: mandatory braces

Hi,

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:11:34 +0900, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Joao Pedrosa wrote:
> 
> > I think that one of the things that make Ruby what it is is the
> > general flexibility of its syntax. The other day I saw this in an
> > example for Rails:
> >
> > {= foo.flash['bar'] if foo.flash['bar'] }
> >
> > or Something... See? The flexibility paid off for the guy that wanted
> > to use it like that.
> 
> Isn't the idea there to produce a string value if there is one
> returned by foo.flash['bar'], but not otherwise?  If so, and unless
> there's some weird default thing going on, it could be written with
> just one foo.flash['bar'] -- which will return nil if not defined,
> which is exactly what the unsuccessful 'if' clause will return, and
> that nil (either way) will be represented as an empty string.  So
> while you can use the 'if', there's no gain from doing so in this
> case.
> 
> (Assuming I'm interpreting the intention correctly, of course.)

In this case you are right. I probably messed up the example, but with
a more complex "if" it could be handy. :-)

Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers,
Joao