From: Rick DeNatale Date: 2010-06-15T07:41:09+09:00 Subject: Re: shorthand On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Roger Pack wrote: > I read this once: > > Operator ||= can be shorthand for code like: >  x = "(some fallback value)" unless respond_to? :x or x > > How would that look like exactly, in shorthand, any guesses? I don't know where you read that, but it has no basis in reality. The semantics of ||= have nothing to do with whether or not a method exists. The closest translation of x ||= y (x || x = y) This is close, except that it will blow up if x isn't already defined. another alternative might be (defined? x) ? (x || x = y) : y Which avoids the problem when x isn't defined, but isn't exactly what the 'compiled' ruby code does, whether that 'code' is YARV 'byte codes' or an AST in MRI pre 1.9 -- Rick DeNatale Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick Twitter: @RickDeNatale WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale