From: fishina barrel <lists@...>
Date: 2013-02-19T09:18:51+09:00
Subject: Re: Deaf Grandma

Matthew Kerwin wrote in post #1097695:
> Matthew Kerwin wrote in post #1097694:
>> If it was me, I'd probably replace the 'while' statement with 'loop do',
>> and after Granny says goodbye (inside the if-end block) I'd add a
>> 'break'.  I think that just makes it a bit more clear that this is
>> actually an infinite loop that can be escaped only when certain criteria
>> are met.  Doesn't really make a difference, though, I don't think.
>
> Sorry, I forgot to mention that you have a slight duplication of logic,
> because you've written 'while count < 3' and 'if count == 3'.  This
> means if Granny turns on her hearing aid you have to remember to change
> the 3 in two places in code.  (Look up the DRY principle.)
>
> To get around this you should consolidate that logic, and I can think of
> two simple ways:
>
> 1) what I said above, with a 'loop{}' and 'break' structure, or
> 2) remove the final 'if-end' block and move the puts statement to the
> bottom of the code, after the while loop:
>
>   count=0
>   while count < 3
>     response=gets.chomp
>     if 'BYE' == response
>       count+=1
>     elsif response == response.upcase
>       puts "NO, NOT SINCE "#{rand(21)+1930}"
>       count=0
>     else
>       puts "HUH?! SPEAK UP SONNY!"
>       count=0
>     end
>   end
>   puts "OK.  Fine.  Just leave then."
>
> Even more like @steve_k61's code, huh?


It really is...Thanks for the pointers.  I haven't learned loop do yet, 
so looking forward to that one.  I guess the final conditional statement 
was really unnecessary since the while loop would keep going until 
count==3.  Thanks again.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.