2011/7/14 Robert Klemme <shortcutter / googlemail.com>:
> Could be that you have found a loophole in the parser logic. :-)

XD


>> I'm using Ruby 1.9.2 and in fact I use a method like "test2" it in my
>> project, but it seems a bit strange for me and I would like to be sure
>> that it's something correct (even if IMHO it does not make sense) and
>> will not change in a future Ruby 1.9 version.
>
> I'd say stop using this idiom. If you use a "case" expression because
> it should yield a value (i.e. "x = case...end") then I would only use
> exceptions as other way out. A "return" indicates regular execution
> flow which in the case of this usage of "case" would mean "have case
> return a value" but not "return from the method".
>
> If you use "case" as a control flow construct (i.e. without assigning
> the result) then a "return" inside is OK and Ruby will also accept it.
> Same goes for "if".

Thanks, I'll make my code more "polite" then :)



-- 
Iaki Baz Castillo
<ibc / aliax.net>