On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Stefan Kaes wrote:

> ah. this true. nice solution. which I have used in the past too. but only in
> expression contexts, where I'm interested in the value of "do something with
> variable". I think that "do ..." if more clearly transports the message that
> I'm not interested in the value returned by "do ...".

In Ruby, there are nine different conditionals. All of them are 
technically expressions, because Ruby makes almost nothing of a potential 
difference between expressions and statements.

statements are a redundant concept and are vestigial from jurassic PASCAL.
(and C, of course, but it didn't rhyme)

the reverse "if" in Ruby is more of a mirror image of "and" than it is of 
the forward "if". It's just like it is in Perl.

____________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard - t?l:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montr?al QC Canada