On 4 Jun 2007, at 15:48, Robert Dober wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Eleanor McHugh <eleanor / games-with-brains.com> wrote:
>> On 4 Jun 2007, at 06:09, Robert Dober wrote:
>> > On 6/3/07, Eleanor McHugh <eleanor / games-with-brains.com> wrote:
>> >> On 31 May 2007, at 06:35, Robert Dober wrote:
>> >> > But maybe things should really by simple
>> >> >
>> >> > return if x > 42
>> >> > return unless (x+1)%2 == 0 # not zero? here
>> >> >
>> >> > could probably made syntactically work (differently than now)  
>> and
>> >> > return the LHS of the expression iff the expression evaluates to
>> >> true
>> >> > or false respectively.
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately this would greatly complicate the situation in  
>> which a
>> >> return without value is intended...
>> > That does not exist :)
>>
>> The _intent_ often exists, regardless of the fact that Ruby always
>> returns a value ;)
> I am not a native speaker but nevertheless I get the feeling that you
> are cheating here ;)
> Am I right?

Guilty as charged ;)
Whilst I think syntax such as

	return if x > 42

being equivalent to

	return (x | nil) if x > 42

is elegant, it would mandate that

	return nil

always be explicit in this particular case. I know that I'd have a  
devil of a time remembering to do that consistently lol


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason