Hi, Is the idea with these changes that you'd only be able to have one first/firstly/before block and one last/lastly/after block? Or to ask another way -- what would happen if you do
task(:foo) do puts "foo" end task(:foo).before do puts "bar" end task(:foo).before do puts "baz" end ? Rhett On Nov 18, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Peter Donald wrote: > Or maybe before/after ala > > task(:foo).before do > # block will be executed before 'enhance' blocks > end > > task(:foo).after do > # block will be executed after 'enhance' blocks > end > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Peter Donald <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I was initially thinking about do_first and do_last but though the "do" was >>> redundant with Ruby's do ... end notation. Do you think that's better? >> >> Not greatly. Maybe firstly and lastly? >> >> task(:foo).firstly do >> # block will be executed before 'enhance' blocks >> end >> >> task(:foo).lastly do >> # block will be executed after 'enhance' blocks >> end >> >> That way it does not double up the "do" word and doesn't look like an >> enumeration. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> Peter Donald >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Peter Donald
