From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2007-05-28T19:55:04+09:00
Subject: Re: Introducing the "it" keyword

On 27.05.2007 20:04, Robert Dober wrote:
> On 5/27/07, Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 27.05.2007 11:46, Robert Dober wrote:
>> > On 5/27/07, Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >> >>
>> >> > That is something I am surprised about, b/c the intention was to 
>> have
>> >> > an idiom for
>> >> > return it if h(x) < 10
>> >>
>> >> No, it's "return it if it < 10" with "it" being "v+1" in this case.
>> > Well that was the original idiom but we are looking for existing ones,
>> > right?
>>
>> Yes, and that's why I presented what I presented.  I am not sure I
>> understand your point here. :-)
>>
>> >> > and
>> >> > return it_test(h(x))
>> >> > really is not the same, right?
>> >>
>> >> It's not the same but I believe you misread the task.  it_test is 
>> just a
>> >> method to demonstrate the idiom in lines 2-4.
>> >
>> > Ah that's why you called the method test_..., not stupid at all ;)
>> > Well I will get to understand what is going on here...
>> > .. eventually...
>> > .. potentially...
>> > .. maybe...
>> > .. hardly...
>>
>> Um...  It's really not that difficult.
> Sure it is, actually the code is simple, I still try to grasp what is
> wanted here, you see?
>> Hope that explains it.   If not, let me know.
> Well see above but never mind :)
> Thx for your time, I shall probably say what I think about all of this:
> (a)
> return v if ((v = 42) % 2).zero?
> would be nice if it worked
> (b)
> I am against fancy enhancements that are purely for optimization but see 
> above.

We are completely on the same page with this.

Kind regards

	robert