Mathieu Bouchard wrote: >On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Stefan Kaes wrote: > > > >>I find it rather inelegant to be forced into writing >> if x = options[:x] >> f(x) >> end >>instead of >> f(x) if x=options[:x] >> >> > >You're not "forced" to do it like that. > >You can do it this way: > > x=options[:x] and f(x) > > We had that one covered already. In http://ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/6715 >And you can also do it this way: > > x=options[:x]; f(x) if x > > How's that better than f(x) if x = options[:x] ? >Which brings me to the point that just because an expression has a >then..end or do..end block doesn't mean it has to be spread over three >lines, and just because a line has got a semicolon doesn't mean it has to >be spread over two lines. Resist the indentation nazis. > > Too much noise caused by superflous keywords. For me. -- stefan