dblack / candle.superlink.net wrote:

> I have a style-related question: I noticed that you put () after all
> method names, and I was wondering what the origin/purpose/whatever of
> that was.  I'm neither trying to criticize it, nor likely to adopt
> it myself :-)  Just wondering.

Hi David,

This is just my personal style.  When I write network simulations (not
Ruby code fragments), I never put () for methods that are defined simply
using "attr_reader", but other methods I usually put () to remind
me that I am "doing some real action" here.  Well, in Ruby () is really
optional for methods without arguments, so I just take this advantage to
mimic the C's member data access vs function call distinction.  On the
other hand, for a method call with a single argument of type block, I
don't put () either, because the {} is enough as a reminder to me that
"some real action is going on here".

Regards,

Bill