From: jbw <jbw@...>
Date: 2010-03-30T11:29:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Arrays

--0015173ff4ec7517fa0482fb6632
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter@googlemail.com>wrote:

> 2010/3/25 Brandon Jones <brandon.g.jones@gmail.com>:
> > Robert Klemme wrote:
> >> Even shorter (6 chars if I'm not mistaken):
> >>
> >> a = %w{123 456 raju}
> >> a.map!{|x|"91#{x}"}
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >>
> >> robert
> >
> > oh yeah?!? well take this
> >
> > %w(123 456 raju).map{|x|"91#{x}"}
> >
> > not exactly the same, as there is no persistent variable, but it is a
> > bit shorter
>
> You're absolutely right.  My main point - which I failed to mention -
> was, that arrays of strings can be easier represented with the %w
> notation.  This works of course only if strings need not contain white
> space.
>
> Kind regards
>
> robert
>
>
> --
> remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
> http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
>
>

I think %w[] would be more syntactically meaningful than curly
braces, square brackets remind us of
arrays. I think it is especially important when using shortcuts, which can
be obscure,  to be as clear as possible.
-- 
jbw

--0015173ff4ec7517fa0482fb6632--