"Robert Klemme" <bob.news / gmx.net> wrote
> This one just stroke me: if syntax could be further relaxed without
> introducing ambiguities then maybe we'd be able to write something like
this
> without other means:
>
> expr.ifDo { puts "true" } :elseDo { puts "nah" }

See http://rcrchive.net/rcr/show/229