[#3986] Re: Principle of least effort -- another Ruby virtue. — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>

> Principle of Least Effort.

14 messages 2000/07/14

[#4043] What are you using Ruby for? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

16 messages 2000/07/16

[#4139] Facilitating Ruby self-propagation with the rig-it autopolymorph application. — Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>

Hi,

11 messages 2000/07/20

[ruby-talk:04115] Re: Method signature - a question for the group

From: hipster <hipster@...4all.nl>
Date: 2000-07-18 19:35:42 UTC
List: ruby-talk #4115
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000  14:24:05 -0500, Dave Thomas wrote:
> 
> However, String#index can return either a Fixnum or nil, depending on
> whether the substring was found, so in this particular case we
> document it as
> 
>       str.index( aString ) -> aFixnum or nil
> 
> We also describe in the text that follows the circumstances under
> which nil is returned.
> 
> The problem is that these "or nil"s appear all over the place (and
> we're discovered places where they're missing), and they mess up the
> layout of the method definitions somewhat. So, we were wondering: do
> people feel they're useful to include in the signature, or is noting
> them in the accompanying text good enough?

I think including this info in the signature is useful. Often when I'm
doing a quick vgrep for a method, I only read its signature.

Maybe
	str.index( aString ) -> aFixnum | nil
or
	str.index( aString ) -> aFixnum/nil

would be less cluttering. I'd personally prefer the first.

Michel

In This Thread