From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-02-20T20:56:51+09:00
Subject: Re: how to raise warning?


"Mark Hubbart" <discord@mac.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4A25FA2C-637E-11D8-9977-000502FDD5CC@mac.com...
>
> On Feb 19, 2004, at 11:50 PM, Gavri Savio Fernandez wrote:
>
> >> From: Hal Fulton [mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com]
> >> Subject: Re: how to raise warning?
> >>> Having a variant of 'warn' that displays that information would be
> >>> nice IMO.
> >>>
> >>>   warn "You didn't provide such and such", true
> >>
> >> Mmm. I would expect that just to print 'true' after the warning.
> I second that. Adding an optional boolean argument to the function to
> get different results doesn't quite seem rubyish to me.

It's generally considered bad to have an interface method that changes
it's behavior dependend on a flag.  The typical solution is to have two
methods for the job.  If they have something in common they can use a
private method for the implementation.

> >> The problem as I see it is that we use warnings in two ways:
> >> 1. As Ruby does, to complain about something happening at a specific
> >>     place in the source -- a highly source-related message. In that
> >>     case, I'd want to see file/line info (as Ruby does when it says I
> >>     need to add parens or something).
> >> 2. To complain about some general condition occurring at runtime that
> >>     doesn't warrant bailing out of the app.
> >>
> >> My suggestion: Two names. Call the first one "warning" (the kind of
> >> warning that Ruby gives us) and the second one "warn" (a simple verb
> >> that just prints to stderr).
> >
> > One of the main things I like about Ruby is that the names are so
> > intuitive.
> > Once i check out a particular class or method in the reference, it is
> > pretty much guaranteed that i won't forget it ever. Even better,
> > sometimes i just guess what the name of a particular entity might be,
> > type it in and the program runs. This, for me, is a major plus for
> > ruby.
> > Even if a particular name is esoteric, it is esoteric in a way i
> > remember and find difficult to forget.
> >
> > Okay, what i'm driving at is this: Naming one method 'warn' (A verb. I
> > like that) and another 'warning' (A noun. Don't like it much) is quite
> > confusing :(
> > There doesn't seem to be any clue in their names to differentiate
> > their functionality from each other.
>
> How about:
> warn "Server timed out. retrying."
> warn! "That number seemed a bit high... Possible error."
>
> This would keep the old behavior for warn(), but add a new function
> warn!(), which would be used for more serious warnings where you want
> to include a traceback.

Ops, didn't read your post before I send mine.  Similar thoughts. :-)

Kind regards

    robert