* ES (Mar 19, 2005 23:10):
> > > > I like the current behavior and have used it in if statements
> > > > more than once, just to throw another log on the fire...

> > > I can see that in some cases; on the other hand chaining would be
> > > enormously fun and useful.

> > Fun?

> 'Conceptually better'.

That's a rather weak statement.

> >> In the end, though, this just ties in with one of my firmly held
> >> beliefs: the success or failure of an operation should be indicated
> >> separately of its return value.

> >How would the success or failure of strip! be returned exactly?,

> Hey, I'm not a Computer Scientist :)

Is that an excuse?  So you may rant about strip! being broken but you
shouldn't be responsible for providing a viable solution to the problem?

> It could be given via the return value wrapped inside a
> MethodCallResult [sic] structure.

You're not using "sic" correctly.  You use "sic" when you quote somebody
elses writing that contains an error to make a not that the error occurs
in the original and that you know about it.  It is often considered
redundant, as you assume that your reader isn't clever enough to
understand that you probably quoted it correctly.  The "sic" is usually
added to in some way discredit the source you are quoting (and proving
that you have nothing better to counter the argument being quoted with
than the person being quoted's ability to write correctly).

> x = line.strip
> puts x if x.successful?

Your example solution is broken, as we can't return anything but the
object receiving the strip!, or this whole discussion is pointless,
        nikolai

-- 
::: name: Nikolai Weibull    :: aliases: pcp / lone-star / aka :::
::: born: Chicago, IL USA    :: loc atm: Gothenburg, Sweden    :::
::: page: minimalistic.org   :: fun atm: gf,lps,ruby,lisp,war3 :::
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}