Phlip wrote:
> _why wrote:
> 
>> You folks can argue all you want about the look of the `for` but
>> you're forgetting the utility of having two nice choices. 
> 
> Tx that's why I said 'for' can be more readable - even though I know 
> nobody in
> person aware of its existence.

FWIW, the skeleton code which Rails generates uses the 'for' loop.

$ rails wombat
$ cd wombat
$ script/generate scaffold flurble
$ cat app/views/flurbles/index.html.erb
...
<% for flurble in @flurbles %>
  <tr>
..
  </tr>
<% end %>
...
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.