From: "Mariusz Pękala" <skoot@...>
Date: 2007-05-30T17:44:45+09:00
Subject: Re: Introducing the "it" keyword

--zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2007-05-30 02:00:28 +0900 (Wed, May), Trans wrote:
> > > Thx for your time, I shall probably say what I think about all of thi=
s:
> > > (a)
> > > return v if ((v =3D 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.
>=20
> I concur. From what I understand, this _will_ eventually work:
>=20
>   return it if ((it =3D 42) % 2).zero?
>=20

irb(main):005:0> def check; return it if ((it =3D 42) % 2).zero?; end
=3D> nil
irb(main):006:0> check
NameError: undefined local variable or method `it' for main:Object
        from (irb):5:in `check'
        from (irb):6

Or you mean it _will_ work in future ruby version?
Anyway, it really would be nice if such construction would work, but
it's not a big problem to express it as:

if (x =3D complex_calculation); return x; end

In my humble opinion, the 'problem' is not very important (forgive me my
limited vocabulary, I really don't want to offend anyone), since I
suppose that following code clearly/better shows the *intentions*: avoiding
performing complex calculation twice, and freeing the possibly large
object for GC.

x =3D complex_calculation
use(x) if x.is_ok?
x =3D nil

--=20
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by 'grep -i virus $MESSAGE'
Trust me.

--zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGXTlssnU0scoWZKARAsNMAJ4vNIKFiVzfBEwQDbouIZ4/n+eo1ACgstDb
UwMCLlUGkyXa6s4ooIfJw1M=
=5ten
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx--