From: Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@...>
Date: 2007-07-24T07:22:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Syntax bug, in 1.8.5?  return not (some expr) <-- syntax

I agree that
if not File.exists? "a"
  do stuff
end

would be nice intuitively. I wish...

unknown wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Good Night Moon wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> by the way, what's the difference between the two methods? They appear
>>> identical.
>>
>> Thanks. The difference is just to point out what looks like
>> a bug; the parens shouldn't make a difference. Look at
>> my other reply in this thread for elaboration.
> 
> I don't think it's a bug.  Have a look at these examples:
> 
> def x; return 1 and puts "I'm gone!"; end
> SyntaxError: compile error
> (irb):3: void value expression
> 
> def x; 2 not 3; end
> SyntaxError: compile error
> (irb):5: syntax error, unexpected kNOT, expecting kEND
> 
> These both make sense.  'and' is right-associative, so you're trying
> to do something after having already returned, which doesn't work.
> And in general you can't do "x not y", which is what "return not ..."
> is read as.
> 
> 
> David

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.