# Any downsides to writing paranthesises? **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [12 September 2011 20:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574 "2011-09-12T20:16:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![David\_Vlad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecc23a/32.png) [@David\_Vlad](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Vlad)\ **Post date:** [12 September 2011 20:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/1 "2011-09-12T20:16:37Z")
Im a newbie programmer who is trying to learn Ruby after having just learned the basics of Python. Being used to Python I very much like having paranthesises when I code because for me it is easier to read and I also think it looks more structured. I know that Ruby encourages you to not use paranthesises in most cases, but my question is: are there any downsides to using paranthesises? I dont know much about programming and I would very much like to know if there is a problem with me using paranthesises pretty much everywhere in Ruby. > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/](http://www.ruby-forum.com/). ---
**Author:** ![serialhex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@serialhex](https://rubytalk.org/u/serialhex)\ **Post date:** [12 September 2011 20:39 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/2 "2011-09-12T20:39:36Z")
while there isn't anything implicitly \*wrong\* with using parens all over the place, IMO (and in most ruby-ists opinion probably) an overabundance of parens looks ugly. case in point: ```auto "foo".to_a().length() # vs "foo".to_a.length ``` the first, with the un-needed parens is kind of ugly, the second, not so much. (in fact, the fact that i \*must\* include the parens with functions that take no arguments infuriates me to no end! it's like ending every line with a freaking semicolon!!! OOHHHH!!!! STAB PEOPLE!!!!!!) but in the end, it's your code, do what you will hex > **···** > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Vladimir Van Bauenhoffer \ wrote: > > > Im a newbie programmer who is trying to learn Ruby after having just > > learned the basics of Python. Being used to Python I very much like > > having paranthesises when I code because for me it is easier to read and > > I also think it looks more structured. > > > > I know that Ruby encourages you to not use paranthesises in most cases, > > but my question is: are there any downsides to using paranthesises? I > > dont know much about programming and I would very much like to know if > > there is a problem with me using paranthesises pretty much everywhere in > > Ruby. > > > > -- > > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). > > -- > \* my blog is cooler than yours: [http://serialhex.github.com](http://serialhex.github.com) > \* The wise man said: "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down > to their level and beat you with experience." > \* As a programmer, it is your job to put yourself out of business. > What you do today can be automated tomorrow. ~Doug McIlroy ---
**Author:** ![11142](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/e0b2c6/32.png) [@11142](https://rubytalk.org/u/11142)\ **Post date:** [12 September 2011 20:41 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/3 "2011-09-12T20:41:41Z")
Just a convention. As long as you're just writing for yourself, do whatever you like; if you ever join some open-source projects, though, you may have to adjust to majority's coding style. Personally I find parentheseless code just as easy to read as parenthesized one (even easier, in some cases, when you'd have to nest parens three-deep...) and much easier to write. -- Matma Rex ---
**Author:** ![Florian\_Gilcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/57b2e6/32.png) [@Florian\_Gilcher](https://rubytalk.org/u/Florian_Gilcher)\ **Post date:** [12 September 2011 20:54 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/4 "2011-09-12T20:54:09Z")
I wouldn't say Ruby encourages you to. It leaves it up to you, as long as your code is unambiguous to the interpreter. For example, one of the most prominent style guides by cneukirchen[1] encourages the use of parantheses in quite a few contexts (e.g. when calling methods to reuse their return value, in argument and some parameter lists). So code with parenthesis is perfectly fine and widely used. You might have sparked another discussion about this now, though :). Regards, Florian [1]: [styleguide/RUBY-STYLE at master · leahneukirchen/styleguide · GitHub](https://github.com/chneukirchen/styleguide/blob/master/RUBY-STYLE) > **···** > > On Sep 12, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Vladimir Van Bauenhoffer wrote: > > > Im a newbie programmer who is trying to learn Ruby after having just > > learned the basics of Python. Being used to Python I very much like > > having paranthesises when I code because for me it is easier to read and > > I also think it looks more structured. > > > > I know that Ruby encourages you to not use paranthesises in most cases, > > but my question is: are there any downsides to using paranthesises? I > > dont know much about programming and I would very much like to know if > > there is a problem with me using paranthesises pretty much everywhere in > > Ruby. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Vlad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecc23a/32.png) [@David\_Vlad](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Vlad)\ **Post date:** [12 September 2011 20:50 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/5 "2011-09-12T20:50:35Z")
.serialhex .. wrote in post #1021524: > while there isn't anything implicitly \*wrong\* with usingparens all > over the place, IMO (and in most ruby-ists opinion probably) an > overabundance of parens looks ugly. case in point: > > ```auto > "foo".to_a().length() > # vs > "foo".to_a.length > > ``` > > the first, with the un-needed parens is kind of ugly, the second, not > so much. (in fact, the fact that i \*must\* include the parens with > functions that take no arguments infuriates me to no end! it's like > ending every line with a freaking semicolon!!! OOHHHH!!!! STAB > PEOPLE!!!!!!) > > but in the end, it's your code, do what you will > hex I agree that having to write empty paranthesises is not all that great and that is not something I would do in Ruby. I mean that I like to write them in places like: Dir.glob("\*txt") array.delete\_at(1) in other words, after methods and the like. > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_Perrin](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/chad_perrin/32/2234_2.png) [@Chad\_Perrin](https://rubytalk.org/u/Chad_Perrin)\ **Post date:** [12 September 2011 23:26 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/6 "2011-09-12T23:26:03Z")
Err . . . just a note: "Parenthesis" is singular, and plural is "parentheses". "Parenthesises" is not correct pluralization, though it is a third-person present form of parenthesise, the British spelling of parethesize. Thus, what you said probably should have been "parenthesisless" (not parentheseless), and what the originator of this thread said should have been "parentheses" (not parenthesises). > **···** > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 05:41:41AM +0900, Bartosz Dziewoński wrote: > > > Personally I find parentheseless code just as easy to read as > > parenthesized one (even easier, in some cases, when you'd have to nest > > parens three-deep...) and much easier to write. > > -- > Chad Perrin [original content licensed OWL: [http://owl.apotheon.org](http://owl.apotheon.org) ] ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Aronson1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Dave\_Aronson1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dave_Aronson1)\ **Post date:** [13 September 2011 00:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/7 "2011-09-13T00:23:45Z")
Yup. 🙂 Another reason to omit the parens is so that clients don't need to be tweaked by adding or removing parens if implementation moves between a function, a public variable (yes, generally bad practice, but it happens), or a var with an attr\_reader (ah, that's better!). -Dave > **···** > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 16:54, Florian Gilcher \ wrote: > > > So code with > > parenthesis is perfectly fine and widely used. You might have sparked another > > discussion about this now, though :). > > -- > Main Web Site: davearonson.com | LOOKING FOR WORK, > Programming Blog: codosaur.us | preferably RoR, in NoVa/DC; > Excellence Blog: dare2xl.com | see main web site. ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_Perrin](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/chad_perrin/32/2234_2.png) [@Chad\_Perrin](https://rubytalk.org/u/Chad_Perrin)\ **Post date:** [12 September 2011 23:20 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/8 "2011-09-12T23:20:20Z")
> .serialhex .. wrote in post #1021524: > \> > \> ``` > \> "foo".to\_a().length() > \> # vs > \> "foo".to\_a.length > \> ``` > > I agree that having to write empty paranthesises is not all that great > and that is not something I would do in Ruby. I mean that I like to > write them in places like: > > Dir.glob("\*txt") > array.delete\_at(1) To my knowledge, there is no technical difference for executing code between when it has parentheses and when it lacks them, as long as you don't run into precedence problems. For instance, these two lines of code have the same effects when executed:     Dir.glob("\*txt")     Dir.glob "\*txt" These two, however, do not:     Dir.glob("txt").map {|x| x.sub(/foo/, 'bar') }     Dir.glob "txt".map {|x| x.sub(/foo/, 'bar') } Similarly, these are equivalent:     hash.delete(1)     hash.delete 1 These two, on the other hand, are not:     hash.delete 1.to\_sym     hash.delete(1).to\_sym These have the same effect, of course:     hash.delete 1.to\_sym     hash.delete(1.to\_sym) I find the first of the two more immediately readable than the second. I suppose your mileage may vary. > in other words, after methods and the like. You seem unaware that to\_a and length, in the above example provided by hex, \*are\* methods. > **···** > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 05:50:35AM +0900, Vladimir Van Bauenhoffer wrote: > > -- > Chad Perrin [original content licensed OWL: [http://owl.apotheon.org](http://owl.apotheon.org) ] ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@Gary\_Wright](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gary_Wright)\ **Post date:** [13 September 2011 01:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/9 "2011-09-13T01:09:26Z")
I agree with this except that there is no such thing as a 'public variable' in Ruby. Not sure what you are referring to there. Gary Wright > **···** > > On Sep 12, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Dave Aronson wrote: > > > Yup. 🙂 Another reason to omit the parens is so that clients don't > > need to be tweaked by adding or removing parens if implementation > > moves between a function, a public variable (yes, generally bad > > practice, but it happens), or a var with an attr\_reader (ah, that's > > better!). ---
**Author:** ![serialhex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@serialhex](https://rubytalk.org/u/serialhex)\ **Post date:** [13 September 2011 01:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/10 "2011-09-13T01:23:19Z")
...witch is why i make my life simplr, just say parens! most of time the ppl i am talkin to know whut i am tlakin aboot. and it savs me A) keystrikes and 2) halving to be gramtikally corekt. hex p.s. was that annoying enough? or should i try harder next time 😛 seriously though, quite informative. > **···** > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Chad Perrin \ wrote: > > > "Parenthesis" is singular, and plural is "parentheses". "Parenthesises" > > is not correct pluralization, though it is a third-person present form of > > parenthesise, the British spelling of parethesize. Thus, what you said > > probably should have been "parenthesisless" (not parentheseless), and > > what the originator of this thread said should have been "parentheses" > > (not parenthesises). > > -- > \* my blog is cooler than yours: [http://serialhex.github.com](http://serialhex.github.com) > \* The wise man said: "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down > to their level and beat you with experience." > \* As a programmer, it is your job to put yourself out of business. > What you do today can be automated tomorrow. ~Doug McIlroy ---
**Author:** ![11142](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/e0b2c6/32.png) [@11142](https://rubytalk.org/u/11142)\ **Post date:** [13 September 2011 13:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/11 "2011-09-13T13:56:18Z")
Yes, I know. I mistyped and only realized it later, but I thought nobody would care enough to point out 😉 -- Matma Rex > **···** > > 2011/9/13 Chad Perrin \: > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 05:41:41AM +0900, Bartosz Dziewoński wrote: > > > > > Personally I find parentheseless code just as easy to read as > > > parenthesized one (even easier, in some cases, when you'd have to nest > > > parens three-deep...) and much easier to write. > > > > Err . . . just a note: > > > > "Parenthesis" is singular, and plural is "parentheses". "Parenthesises" > > is not correct pluralization, though it is a third-person present form of > > parenthesise, the British spelling of parethesize. Thus, what you said > > probably should have been "parenthesisless" (not parentheseless), and > > what the originator of this thread said should have been "parentheses" > > (not parenthesises). ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_Christopherson](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/eric_christopherson/32/1849_2.png) [@Eric\_Christopherson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Eric_Christopherson)\ **Post date:** [13 September 2011 01:19 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/12 "2011-09-13T01:19:58Z")
And a var with an attr\_reader is really just a method. I've seen this justification of going without parentheses in a book, too, and it didn't make any more sense to me then. The only thing I can think of with respect to ease of tweaking is that you could change between a \*local\* variable and a method without changing the actual usages; but I don't see how that's very likely to be an issue in practice. > **···** > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Gary Wright \ wrote: > > > On Sep 12, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Dave Aronson wrote: > > > > > Yup. 🙂 Another reason to omit the parens is so that clients don't > > > need to be tweaked by adding or removing parens if implementation > > > moves between a function, a public variable (yes, generally bad > > > practice, but it happens), or a var with an attr\_reader (ah, that's > > > better!). > > > > I agree with this except that there is no such thing as a 'public variable' in Ruby. Not sure what you are referring to there. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Vlad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecc23a/32.png) [@David\_Vlad](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Vlad)\ **Post date:** [13 September 2011 05:57 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/13 "2011-09-13T05:57:35Z")
Chad Perrin wrote in post #1021546: > To my knowledge, there is no technical difference for executing code > between when it has parentheses and when it lacks them, as long as you > don't run into precedence problems. What does precedence problems mean exactly? > For instance, these two lines of > code have the same effects when executed: > >     Dir.glob("\*txt") >     Dir.glob "\*txt" > > These two, however, do not: > >     Dir.glob("txt").map {|x| x.sub(/foo/, 'bar') } >     Dir.glob "txt".map {|x| x.sub(/foo/, 'bar') } Does that mean you have to use paranthesises if you want to use the code above? > You seem unaware that to\_a and length, in the above example provided by > hex, \*are\* methods. Yeah Im facepalming right now, of course they are methods. Silly me. > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_Perrin](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/chad_perrin/32/2234_2.png) [@Chad\_Perrin](https://rubytalk.org/u/Chad_Perrin)\ **Post date:** [13 September 2011 13:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/14 "2011-09-13T13:23:23Z")
A better effort might have looked like this: ...wich is why i make my life simpaler, just say parens! most of time the ppl i am talkin too know what i am talkin about. and it saves me A) keystrikes and 2) halving to be gramatickly coreckt. I think that might make it a little bit less certain you were kidding. I should probably stop now. This has gone off the topic more than enough. Thanks for the compliment, though. > **···** > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:23:19AM +0900, serialhex wrote: > > > ...witch is why i make my life simplr, just say parens! most of time > > the ppl i am talkin to know whut i am tlakin aboot. and it savs me A) > > keystrikes and 2) halving to be gramtikally corekt. > > > > hex > > > > p.s. was that annoying enough? or should i try harder next time 😛 > > seriously though, quite informative. > > -- > Chad Perrin [original content licensed OWL: [http://owl.apotheon.org](http://owl.apotheon.org) ] ---
**Author:** ![Adam\_Prescott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7feea3/32.png) [@Adam\_Prescott](https://rubytalk.org/u/Adam_Prescott)\ **Post date:** [13 September 2011 13:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/15 "2011-09-13T13:56:21Z")
What saves you time adds reading and comprehension time for everyone else. 🙂 > **···** > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:23 AM, serialhex \ wrote: > > > and it savs me A) > > keystrikes and 2) halving to be gramtikally corekt. ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_Perrin](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/chad_perrin/32/2234_2.png) [@Chad\_Perrin](https://rubytalk.org/u/Chad_Perrin)\ **Post date:** [13 September 2011 18:44 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/16 "2011-09-13T18:44:23Z")
Mostly, I'm just trying to help. > **···** > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:56:18PM +0900, Bartosz Dziewoński wrote: > > > 2011/9/13 Chad Perrin \: > > \> > > \> "Parenthesis" is singular, and plural is "parentheses". > > \> "Parenthesises" is not correct pluralization, though it is a > > \> third-person present form of parenthesise, the British spelling of > > \> parethesize. Thus, what you said probably should have been > > \> "parenthesisless" (not parentheseless), and what the originator of > > \> this thread said should have been "parentheses" (not parenthesises). > > > > Yes, I know. I mistyped and only realized it later, but I thought > > nobody would care enough to point out 😉 > > -- > Chad Perrin [original content licensed OWL: [http://owl.apotheon.org](http://owl.apotheon.org) ] ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@Gary\_Wright](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gary_Wright)\ **Post date:** [13 September 2011 03:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/17 "2011-09-13T03:48:09Z")
I think the "uniform access principle" is a good one ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform\_access\_principle\](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_access_principle%5C)). I was just flagging the "public variable" terminology, which I don't think is meaningful in a Ruby context. Instance variables are never directly accessible in Ruby so there is no concept of access control to instance variables. They must be accessed through instance methods (Kernel#instance\_variable\_get is the "loophole" to this but even that is a method and not simply syntax). Gary Wright > **···** > > On Sep 12, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Eric Christopherson wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Gary Wright \ wrote: > > > > > On Sep 12, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Dave Aronson wrote: > > > > > > > Yup. 🙂 Another reason to omit the parens is so that clients don't > > > > need to be tweaked by adding or removing parens if implementation > > > > moves between a function, a public variable (yes, generally bad > > > > practice, but it happens), or a var with an attr\_reader (ah, that's > > > > better!). > > > > > > I agree with this except that there is no such thing as a 'public variable' in Ruby. Not sure what you are referring to there. > > > > And a var with an attr\_reader is really just a method. I've seen this > > justification of going without parentheses in a book, too, and it > > didn't make any more sense to me then. ---
**Author:** ![Jesus\_Gabriel\_y\_Gala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@Jesus\_Gabriel\_y\_Gala](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jesus_Gabriel_y_Gala)\ **Post date:** [13 September 2011 07:11 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/any-downsides-to-writing-paranthesises/63574/18 "2011-09-13T07:11:17Z")
Precedence problems mean that the parser understands the second line as you calling the map method on the "txt" string, not on the result of Dir.glob, so the second line is equivalent to: Dir.glob("txt".map {|x| x.sub(/foo/, 'bar') }) which is clearly not the same as the first line. Jesus. > **···** > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Vladimir Van Bauenhoffer \ wrote: > > > Chad Perrin wrote in post #1021546: > > > > > To my knowledge, there is no technical difference for executing code > > > between when it has parentheses and when it lacks them, as long as you > > > don't run into precedence problems. > > > > What does precedence problems mean exactly? > > > > > For instance, these two lines of > > > code have the same effects when executed: > > > > > > ``` > > > Dir\.glob\("\*txt"\) > > > Dir\.glob "\*txt" > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > These two, however, do not: > > > > > > ``` > > > Dir\.glob\("txt"\)\.map \{|x| x\.sub\(/foo/, 'bar'\) \} > > > Dir\.glob "txt"\.map \{|x| x\.sub\(/foo/, 'bar'\) \} > > > > > > ```