From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Date: 2000-11-08T01:48:14+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:6131] Re: detect:ifNone: in Ruby

On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In message "[ruby-talk:6111] Re: detect:ifNone: in Ruby"
>     on 00/11/07, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> |> How about default, defaults or defaulting (I like the last).
> |
> |I'd call it "nilGives" or "nil_gives", etc.  I think default leaves too
> |much open -- it depends on how your objects are made as to what their
> |defualt value is.
> 
> I agree with that `default' is too broad.  And both `nilGives' (case
> mixture; third person) and 'nil_gives (third person) are not Rubyish
> neither.

nil_give perhaps?  It's not a yield though...
> 
> |This reminds me of my request for a short-circuit operator....  Is
> |there a way the two can be unified, or is that silly?
> 
> Ah, could you tell me about your short-curcuit operator idea again?
> I'm too easy to forget.

It was to do with sort! producing nil so that chains of methods "break"

myarray.sort!.uniq!.print

could raise an exception, but 

myarray.sort!.cut.uniq!.cut.print

meant:
myarray.sort! If the result is nil then do mo more of this statement
otherwise myarray.uniq! and if the result is nil do no more of the
statement otherwise myarray.print.

But I think cut is not the right word because of its meaning in Prolog.
> 
> 							matz.
> 
	Hugh