No problem.

I try to learn ruby by following ruby koans.
But I th= ink now it's not a good idea.

They work with =3B test-driven dev= elopment.
So every test on koans fail but most of the times in the error= message is hidden what the right answer is.
In the end you have to use = that knowlegde to solve puzzles like this.

So i'm looking for a way = that works for me.

Roelof

>=3B Date: Wed=2C 26 Sep 2012 18:35:24 +0900
>=3B From:= lists@ruby-forum.com
>=3B Subject: Re: inject problem
>=3B To: r= uby-talk@ruby-lang.org
>=3B
>=3B Roelof Wobben wrote in post #10= 77587:
>=3B >=3B I'm just beginning with ruby and in this moments I = miss a IDE where I
>=3B >=3B can do everything step by step so I can= see what went wrong.
>=3B
>=3B Well=2C I wouldn't rely too much= on the IDE. The danger of this is that it
>=3B leads to a kind of "t= rial and error" programming: You just write
>=3B something down and t= hen use the debugger to make actual working code out
>=3B of it.
&= gt=3B
>=3B That's not how it should be=2C especially when you've just= started. The
>=3B code reflects your thoughts=2C so it should at lea= st be logical in itself.
>=3B Sure=2C we all make mistakes=2C so ther= e will always be typos=2C syntax errors
>=3B etc. But when your code = is logical incorrect=2C it shows that you've not
>=3B really thought = this through (or maybe didn't even understand the parts
>=3B you've c= opied and pasted).
>=3B
>=3B This is no critique or something=2C= just a suggestion. In school exams=2C we
>=3B actually have to write= down our code on a piece of paper. This way we
>=3B focus on clear t= houghts=2C not so much on getting the code running
>=3B somehow.
&= gt=3B
>=3B
>=3B
>=3B >=3B Now refractor the if then 's = and I hope I can decline it to less then 5
>=3B >=3B if then's.
&= gt=3B
>=3B I don't understand the logic=2C so I can't help you with t= hat. But you
>=3B should structure the cases with nested "if"s.
&g= t=3B
>=3B --
>=3B Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>= =3B