From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2006-12-12T19:10:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Bug in Ruby or Pickaxe?

On 12.12.2006 00:15, Dave Thomas wrote:
> 
> On Dec 11, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> 
>> What bugs me is that the "else" clause is not executed if it is left 
>> via a "return".  Taking the Pickaxe 2nd edition pg. 362 literally ("If 
>> an else clause is present, its body is executed if no exceptions were 
>> raised in code.") it would have to be executed in that case, too.  So, 
>> if the interpreter would behave as stated in the book, there was 
>> actually a difference between the code at the end of the block and the 
>> code inside the else clause.
> 
> Why would you expect the else clause to be executed if a return is 
> executed? That seems counter-intuitive to me.

I have low expectations with regard to the "else" clause but the book 
clearly states that it is executed if there was no exception - that 
includes the case where the block is left via a "return".  Behavior and 
description simply are not in sync, that's my point.

I can't remember ever having used this type of "else" clause so far so I 
am pretty nonreligious about it.  Although I can imagine a situation 
where I would want to make sure some cleanup code is executed only when 
there was no error in the block - and this includes leaving via 
"return".  Of course you can argue that leaving via "return" is a non 
standard way to leave the block...  As I said, I am pretty relaxed here. 
  I just think this needs some clarification - either way or the other.

Kind regards

	robert