From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-07-24T05:38:43+09:00
Subject: Re: Is there a replacement for sub?

On 7/23/07, bbiker <renard3411@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
> My primary objection to have a nil return is that it prevents me from
> safely chaining bang! methods.
>
> The nil return is counter-intuitive and violates the Principle of
> Least Surprise
Yours yes, mine not at all

... unless gsub!(..., ...)

is quite useful to me.
>
> As I said before given an array such as arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], I
> can do
>
> new_arr = arr.flatten.uniq.sort =>        [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
>
> Intuitively I would think that I should be able to do
> arr.flatten!.uniq!.sort!; however because of the nil return by
> #flatten!, a NoMethodError is raised by #uniq! since the nil object
> does not have a uniq! method.
That is a different case, I adhere to your POV on this one.
>
> Note that not all bang! methods return nil when nothing was changed in
> the receiver.  Array#sort! return self if self was already sorted.
>
> Hopefully Matz might be reading this thread and might consider
> changing the behavior of bang! methods returns.
Why should he? He *might* consider it if it were a largely discussed
and backed up RCR, there seems some way to go...
>
>
>

Robert
-- 

We're on a mission from God. ~ Elwood,