From: Charlie Bowman <charlie@...>
Date: 2006-03-03T00:53:09+09:00
Subject: Re: cleaner Ruby in a rails view

--=-ok629ACj2M8gOTQiv+nt
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm not so sure.  I've been using perls Template-Toolkit for the last
several years and I love the fact that my template doesn't care weather
or not I actually passed it a variable.  It allows me to avoid all the
problems that rails users (me included ) keep having.  I try to re-use
my views with as many actions as possible, and this creates a lot of
rescue nil code.  Maybe it's just personal preference or maybe I'm just
used to TT but I definitely would rather have my views just skip over
any nil values than throw an error.


On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 00:43 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:

> On Mar 2, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Charlie Bowman wrote:
> 
> > I know this is the ruby list and not the rails list but it would be  
> > nice
> > if we didn't have to add code to our views to rescue nils.  I guess  
> > you
> > could add the method each if you to the nil class right?
> 
> You can, sure.  Whether or not it is a good idea is the question.  ;)
> 
> Currently, when you call each() on nil, it explodes.  This is a good  
> thing, because it takes you right to the problem.  You were expecting  
> to have an Enumerable, but you really have a nil.
> 
> If we take that away, Ruby will start silently accepting what are  
> most likely mistakes.  While that may keep you from typing (enum ||  
> []).each... in some places, it will prevent Ruby from catching real  
> errors in others.  Better that we explicitly state that nil is okay  
> in this case, and let Ruby watch our back for us the rest of the  
> time, don't you think?
> 
> James Edward Gray II
> 


Charlie Bowman
http://www.recentrambles.com

--=-ok629ACj2M8gOTQiv+nt--