From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-05-13T21:31:33+09:00
Subject: Re: boolean affectation shortcut

---2049402039-1743833061-1147523490=:12192
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-2049402039-1743833061-1147523490=:12192"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---2049402039-1743833061-1147523490=:12192
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Hi --

On Sat, 13 May 2006, Pe=C3=B1a, Botp wrote:

> fr 13:
> # You can' t because only methods can end with ?
>
> i think he is asking, why not? of course, we know it is not
> currently possible, but variable names with "?" may enhance
> readability.
>
> consider,
>
> x? =3D method_that_determines_some_status
>
> ....
>
> if x?
>  ....
>
> end
>
> by just looking at the name, we are pretty sure that x? is a boolean
> (just like is_xx? methods return bools).
>
> wc is better than,
>
> if x
>   ...
> end
>
> whether x is a variable or method..
>
> it's just an added character where one may happily use or not. But
> maybe i am missing something deeper..

To me, this:

   x? =3D true

reads as:

   set "is x?" to true

=2E.. that is, setting the question, rather than the answer.


David

--=20
David A. Black (dblack@wobblini.net)
* Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypowerandlight.com)
   > Ruby and Rails consultancy and training
* Author of "Ruby for Rails" from Manning Publications!
   > http://www.manning.com/black
---2049402039-1743833061-1147523490=:12192--
---2049402039-1743833061-1147523490=:12192--