From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-09-10T23:40:14+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR to modify #puts and #print inside ERB

Hi --

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Gavin Kistner wrote:

> Proposed RCR:
>
> Modify ERB so that calls to #puts, #print, and #p inside the template append 
> the resulting string onto the local ERB output variable, instead of sending 
> the output to $stdout. #warn would still send to STDERR (for debug messages 
> seen but kept out of the result string) and $stdout#<< could also be used.
>
> Does anyone have any compelling reason why I should not make the above RCR? 
> I'll flesh it out as a proper RCR, citing the ruby-talk threads with users 
> wondering why it doesn't work as they expected.

I can't think of any reason to do this other than the fact that people
who haven't learned how to use ERB expect it, and I don't consider
that a compelling reason.  I would therefore not be in favor of it.
Further on the negative side, it would have the effect of collapsing
two very different logical levels into one.  It just seems odd to have
three methods whose interpolated value is the value of an argument,
while everything else in the language is interpolated on the basis of
its actual value.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net