From: hakunin <madfancier@...>
Date: 2008-06-17T22:18:56+09:00
Subject: Re: print(true and true) #=> the parenthesis issue

On Jun 17, 9:11 am, hakunin <madfanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 8:52 am, Robert Klemme <shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 17 Jun., 14:42, hakunin <madfanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Having a feature that makes the language simple which is not
> > > > used by anyone (or only rarely) does not justify complicating the
> > > > parser more than necessary.
>
> > > I wouldn't say that this is unused.  I came across this issue when
> > > trying to write an ACL method, looking something like this:
> > > only( a :guest and not the @user ) do end # => 'a' and 'the' are both
> > > methods returning boolean based on supplied arg
>
> > Not sure how this can work since obviously you want to evaluate the
> > ACL on access time and not when you define it.  Why don't you use a
> > block?
>
> > only { a :guest and not the @user }
>
> > Cheers
>
> > robert
>
> I don't want to go too off-topic, as I just wanted to show a usage
> example. To be quick - I'm doing web dev, and in my case the role
> "guest" and the object @user are stored in current_user session
> object. The method is supposed to be like this: only(who){ #do
> something for this particular "who" }-- the block passed to "only"
> will run only if the boolean returns true.

It will make more sense if I mentioned this is used by designer in
html templates to output or omit certain parts. : ) But that's beyond
the subject, once again.