From: Rudolf Polzer <AntiATField_adsgohere@...>
Date: 2002-12-29T08:35:04+09:00
Subject: Re: block from string

Scripsit ille Robert <bob.news@gmx.net>:
> 
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATField_adsgohere@durchnull.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:slrnb0rvel.5qc.AntiATField_adsgohere@katsuragi.durchnull.ath.cx...
> > Scripsit ille Robert <bob.news@gmx.net>:
> > > "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATField_adsgohere@durchnull.de> schrieb:
> > [...]
> > > >   ((ARGV.length() == 0) ? Dir["..?* .[^.]* *"] : ARGV).each() do |_|
> > [...]
> > > > And - note the ugly glob pattern. Is there something cleaner for "take
> > > > everything from the current directory except . and .."?
> > >
> > > how about using "next":
> > >
> > >   ( ARGV.empty? ? Dir : ARGV ).each() do |_|
> > >     next if _ == "." || _ == ".."
> >
> > Right, since it isn't useful or possible at all to rename '.' and '..'.
> >
> > >     _2 = _.instance_eval( expr )
> > >     puts "%s => %s" % [_, _2]
> > >     File.rename(_, _2) unless File.exists?(_2)
> > >   end
> 
> just out of curiosity: why do you use the variable names "_" and "_2"
> instead of "file" or something else which is more obvious?  is there any
> hidden optimization which i overlooked?

No, in the old version it was less characters to type. Any one-character
variable name would have been OK.

Note it was originally called

  rename.rb _.downcase *

Now it can be changed.


-- 
[mpg123d] Just playing: .../08 ame no hi no sugoshikata - new recording.mp3


The math could be slightly incorrect, but it sounds right.              RFC 2795