From: Tito Ciuro <tciuro@...>
Date: 2007-10-20T00:30:19+09:00
Subject: Re: Is it always the norm to skip 'return'?

--Apple-Mail-3--247746401
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Glen,

On Oct 19, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Glen Holcomb wrote:

> On 10/19/07, Tito Ciuro <tciuro@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a question about skipping the 'return' keyword in a Ruby  
>> method.
>> For example:
>>
>> def self.encrypted_password(password, salt)
>>  string_to_hash = password + salt
>>  Digest::SHA1.hexdigest(string_to_hash)
>> end
>>
>> Being used to work in other languages, this is weird to me. Without
>> looking at the documentation, I have no way of knowing that  
>> 'hexdigest'
>> returns a string. Wouldn't the following be easier to understand?:
>>
>> def self.encrypted_password(password, salt)
>>  string_to_hash = password + salt
>>  return Digest::SHA1.hexdigest(string_to_hash)
>> end
>>
>> Why so many Ruby snippets skip the 'return' keyword?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- Tito
>> --
>> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>>
>>
> Because Ruby lets you be lazy like that.  You can put it in if you  
> want but
> you don't have to so laziness prevails.
>
> However how does your adding return address your issue with not  
> knowing what
> the last method call returns?

Well, if I'm looking at some code with a return statement as shown  
above, I tells me that Digest::SHA1.hexdigest returns a string, which  
in turn the method returns as well. I don't really need to check the  
documentation.

I just think that in this case it pays off to be a little less lazy :-)

Thanks for your reply.

-- Tito
--Apple-Mail-3--247746401--