Fixed this in r511. I still think there's a time and a place for that pattern. It's not magical and it follows a clear precedent in good OO design. It is decidedly *not* as performant as it's sometimes longer handed counterpart, but Ruby is a language in which the value of being succinct is frequently more important than being very fast. I'd rather not sacrifice a bit of beauty in my code for a few milliseconds parsing difference, since most of the overhead occurs in method dispatch.
just my 2ยข -- Stephen Caudill (voxdolo) On Sep 4, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Brian Candler wrote: > The following construct is an ActiveSupport-ism: > > returning(Foo.new) do |foo| > ... > end > > I don't especially like it, since it's both more verbose and less > efficient > than the direct alternative: > > foo = Foo.new > ... > foo > > It doesn't occur many times in Merb, so does anyone agree with me > that it > should be removed? > > I tried doing this (patch attached) and I find the code more readable > without. For example, in lib/merb/mixins/responder.rb > > Before: > > def <=>(entry) > returning((entry.quality <=> quality).to_s) do |c| > c.replace((index <=> entry.index).to_s) if c == '0' > end.to_i > end > > After: > > def <=>(entry) > c = (entry.quality <=> quality).to_s > c.replace((index <=> entry.index).to_s) if c == '0' > c.to_i > end > > This second form also more clearly begs the question, why is the > result from > <=> being converted to string and then back to integer? I don't > know the > answer to that :-) > > I believe the attached patch is OK - it doesn't break any specs. It > doesn't > remove the definition of Object#returning itself, or its spec. > > Regards, > > Brian. > <merb-returning.diff> > _______________________________________________ > Merb-devel mailing list > Merb-devel@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/merb-devel _______________________________________________ Merb-devel mailing list Merb-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/merb-devel
