From: dblack@...
Date: 2007-05-29T18:12:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Introducing the "it" keyword

Hi --

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

> Greg Fodor wrote:
>> Its hard to think of a solution to this implemented in ruby
>> that fits these parameters without introducing a new
>> language level construct.
>
> I'm not opposed to the idea, but I really, really hate "it". "it" doesn't 
> mean anything. "it" might as well be "that" or "him" or "this"...oh wait, 
> perhaps not "this".
>
> How about "her"? We don't have a good ratio of women involved in Ruby anyway, 
> so we can feel better about ourselves then.
>
> What about a "local global" like we have for other things ($_ and $~ for 
> example?
>
> return $RESULT if v + 1 < 10
>
> -or-
>
> return $result if v + 1 < 10

The argument from precedent is tricky, though.  I'd say the presence
of $_ and $~ and friends suggests, not that more local globals are
desireable, but that Ruby has reached, and perhaps exceeded, its quota
of them :-)


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
    (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)