Umm, on what version are you seeing a warning there? I don't and never
have gotten a warning doing that exact thing.

 - Evan

On 2/6/06, Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml / magical-cat.org> wrote:
> On 2006.02.07 10:03, Evan Webb wrote:
> > I'm not sure we even need the 'with' syntax. Even if we do, it breaks
> > the programmers context in a way that we might not want to have to
> > explain constantly. I can just hear the questions now...
> >
> > "Why are my method calls inside a with being executed on the wrong object?"
> >
> > "Well, thats because with changes self for it's body, and so you have
> > to be careful what you call in there."
> >
> > repeat..
> >
> > While the more hardcore of us are use to using blocks to enter into
> > new and strange contexts (module_eval/class_eval/instance_eval oh
> > my!), pushing this to the normal user is not a decision that should be
> > made lightly.
> >
> > As for the original syntax "&?" I'm against it. It adds a significant
> > new level of unreadability. At this stage of the game, any syntax
> > changes need to really thought out. We've already got a great,
> > expressive syntax. If you want to do away with the duplication of
> > effort, use a local variable, thats what there there for:
> >
> > if t = a[0] and t.strip.empty?
> >    # jump off a bridge
> > end
> >
> > On a regular basis I write:
> >
> > if a = something_long
> >    a.another_operation
> > end
> >
> > The local variable a gets the value "cached" and then we get to do a
> > conditional on it's value right away. We've got a language where
> > everything is an expression, lets use it!
>
> A minor nitpick, you need
>
>   if (t = something.first) and t.strip.empty?
>     # ...
>   end
>
> Otherwise a warning will be emitted (sensible behaviour).
>
> >  - Evan
> >
> > On 2/3/06, James Britt <ruby / jamesbritt.com> wrote:
> > > mathew wrote:
> > > >...
> > >
> > >
> > > > with a[1]
> > > >  strip!
> > > >  empty?
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > or similar. Hopefully you get the basic idea anyway, and someone can
> > > > refine the semantics if they like it...
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not too keen on terse syntax; clarity for the read takes precedence
> > > over ease for the writer.  The 'with' syntax is more expressive.
> > >
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > When I do good, I feel good;  when I do bad, I feel bad,
> > and that is my religion.
> >     -- Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)
>
>
> E
>
>


--
When I do good, I feel good;  when I do bad, I feel bad,
and that is my religion.
    -- Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)