From: bbiker <renard3411@...>
Date: 2007-07-24T10:44:57+09:00
Subject: Re: Is there a replacement for sub?

On Jul 23, 4:38 pm, "Robert Dober" <robert.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/23/07, bbiker <renard3...@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.
>

well how about this counter example?

str = "hello"

str.downcase!.capitalize!    =>  NoMethodError: undefined method
`captitalize!' for nil:NilClass

My point is that method chaining is a common ruby idiom and nil
returns get in the way!!!

I believe that there was/is a thread regarding chaining when a method
returns nil.

>> 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...

That's for sure.  I know that I am whistling in the wind. :<o)