Hi --

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:

> 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".

Doesn't that mean that you always have to know whether something was
defined with attr_reader?  That seems like a kind of arbitrary thing
-- it could always be redefined.  Also, what if you're using a library
package?


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav