From: ES <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-03-20T07:06:54+09:00
Subject: Re: strip and its evil brother strip!


In data 3/19/2005, "Nikolai Weibull"
<mailing-lists.ruby-talk@rawuncut.elitemail.org> ha scritto:

>* ES (Mar 19, 2005 22:40):
>> > > While you might argue that modifying a String can be faster than
>> > > constructing a new one based on the old one, I still think that
>> > > that is not what matz had in mind when adding them. I'm not sure
>> > > if this truly is how this feature was meant to be used so it's
>> > > probably best to take this with a grain of salt until matz has
>> > > clarified the situation.
>
>> > I like the current behavior and have used it in if statements more
>> > than once, just to throw another log on the fire...
>
>> I can see that in some cases; on the other hand chaining would be
>> enormously fun and useful.
>
>Fun?

'Conceptually better'.

>> In the end, though, this just ties in with one of my firmly held
>> beliefs: the success or failure of an operation should be indicated
>> separately of its return value.
>
>How would the success or failure of strip! be returned exactly?,
>        nikolai

Hey, I'm not a Computer Scientist :)

It could be given via the return value wrapped inside a
MethodCallResult [sic] structure.

x = line.strip
puts x if x.successful?

It could be given as a special variable/method.

x = line.strip
puts x if successful?

Or there could be an entirely new way.

# test.rb                        # test_handling.rbh
x = line.strip
puts x                           pass if not strip.successful?

E