Le 12/5/2005, "Eric Mahurin" <eric_mahurin / yahoo.com> a ñÄrit:
>--- Phrogz <gavin / refinery.com> wrote:
>> Eric Mahurin wrote:
>> > Enumerable says nothing about the return value or each.
>> > Array.each says it returns an Array, but not what's in that
>> > Array.  Before testing, I was thinking it might be the same
>> as
>> > map/collect.  The integer loops also say they return an
>> > integer, but not what it is.
>>
>> You seem to be not so much interested in whether or not
>> people use this
>> feature, as instead convincing them that they shouldn't use
>> them,
>> because you'd like to see the feature go away.
>>
>> (Which is fine...expressing one's opinions and attempting to
>> sway
>> others' it one fine use of the mailing list :)
>
>I was doing both.  I don't like the current behavior and would
>like to propose a change, but need to know what the usage is to
>see how feasible making a change would be (rendering some code
>incompatible).
>
>> However, I fail to see as valid the argument that we should
>> not be
>> using a feature just because the documentation is incomplete.
>> Instead,
>> the documentation should be fixed.
>>
>> There may certainly to be some side-effects of idiosyncracies
>> of the
>> language implementation upon which one should not rely, but
>> that
>> specific self return value of certain methods smells far more
>> like an
>> intentional feature than a bug.
>>
>>
>> Your argument that they should return nil for consistency
>> certainly has
>> some merit. I counter-argue that if you're always going to
>> return the
>> same value from a method, returning the receiver is usually
>> preferable
>> over returning nil.
>>
>> I vote: don't take away my feature just because you don't
>> like it, and
>> don't like that I use chaining across blockths which (to
>some)
>> looks
>> ugly. :)
>
>If each, each_with_index, downto, upto, step, times, etc
>returned nil instead of the original object, it wouldn't be
>that difficult to change the code that depended on the original
>object returning functionality.  For code that would rather
>have nil returned, the current functionality forces one to make
>a new method for one of these loops or use loop/while/until.
>
>To give more examples, here is how you could write stuff (with
>a nil return) like what is in Enumerable (and Array) withod the
>need of any more methods:
>
>find(&b): enum.each {|o| break(o) if b.call(o) } -> o or nil
>????(&b): enum.each {|o| r=b.call(o) and break(r) } -> r or nil
>include?(x): enum.each {|o| break(true) if x==o } -> true or
>nil
>index(x): enum.each_with_index {|o,i| break(i) if x==o } -> i
>or nil
>index(&b): enum.each_with_index {|o,i| break(i) if b.call(o) }
>-> i or nil
>find(&b): m.downto(n) {|i| break(i) if b.call(i) } -> i or nil
>...
>
>If each and each_with_index returned nil, you wouldn't need
>find, include, and index because you could accomplish the same
>thing with each and each_with_index and just 2 more words:
>break if.  And of course you could do a lot more using whatever
>code you want.  Another example is that the latest addition to
>Array.index to take a block (1.9?) wouldn't be needed.  To me,
>all of the above code is clearer than find, include, index
>because the exact condition checked and what is returned is
>shown.
>
>Also, making this change would make these work just like
>loop/while/until where they return nil unless a break (with a
>value) is done.  I think that functionality makes sense and is
>useful.
>
>I may have lost this battle already as it appears as though
>some are using the current functionality (that doesn't add too
>much value).  It just may be too late to change this API.  But
>I wanted to give my 2 cents.

I just do not see any benefit in the approach; the current
implementation allows method chaining and a change would
quite possibly break some of code. Furthermore, I would
hypothetize that rewriting your example cases would be
simpler than the other way around. For example, one would
likely use a method like #find rather than #each combined
with a #break if one were to attempt to find a certain
value.

E

--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }