# Do/end vs braces **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [8 December 2005 14:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116 "2005-12-08T14:09:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Steve\_Litt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Steve\_Litt](https://rubytalk.org/u/Steve_Litt)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 14:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/1 "2005-12-08T14:09:06Z")
Hi all, It looks to me like when you use an iterator (each for instance), you can make the block either from a do/end pair, or from curly braces. All things being equal, I'd greatly prefer to use do/end. Are there any differences in runtime speed, capabilities, or Rubyness? #!/usr/bin/ruby (1..4).each do |i|   puts i end print "================\n" (1..4).each { |i|   puts i } Output: [slitt@mydesk slitt]$ ./test.rb 1 2 3 4 > **···** > > ================ > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > [slitt@mydesk slitt]$ > > Thanks > > SteveT > > Steve Litt > [http://www.troubleshooters.com](http://www.troubleshooters.com) > [slitt@troubleshooters.com](mailto:slitt@troubleshooters.com) ---
**Author:** ![J-Van](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bc8723/32.png) [@J-Van](https://rubytalk.org/u/J-Van)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 14:13 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/2 "2005-12-08T14:13:30Z")
Typically, 5.times { |i| puts i } 5.times do |i|   puts i end Generally people save do .. end for multiline stuff. Don't think there's a difference in speed. Sometimes people who use vim use only braces for vim's matching capabilities, although didn't someone fix that for do..end? > **···** > > On 12/8/05, Steve Litt \ wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > It looks to me like when you use an iterator (each for instance), you can make > > the block either from a do/end pair, or from curly braces. All things being > > equal, I'd greatly prefer to use do/end. Are there any differences in runtime > > speed, capabilities, or Rubyness? ---
**Author:** ![James\_Edward\_Gray\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ea5d25/32.png) [@James\_Edward\_Gray\_II](https://rubytalk.org/u/James_Edward_Gray_II)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 14:51 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/3 "2005-12-08T14:51:57Z")
There is a subtle difference in binding precedence. I wrote about that in this message: [http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/b67b116e49473e11](http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/b67b116e49473e11) Hope that helps. James Edward Gray II > **···** > > On Dec 8, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Steve Litt wrote: > > > Are there any differences in runtime speed, capabilities, or Rubyness? ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Schierbeck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dfb087/32.png) [@Daniel\_Schierbeck](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Schierbeck)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 15:07 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/4 "2005-12-08T15:07:36Z")
Steve Litt wrote: > Hi all, > > It looks to me like when you use an iterator (each for instance), you can make the block either from a do/end pair, or from curly braces. All things being equal, I'd greatly prefer to use do/end. Are there any differences in runtime speed, capabilities, or Rubyness? There's a slight difference in how they're parsed.    foo bar { block } is the same as    foo(bar { block }) while    foo bar do      block    end is the same as    foo(bar) do      block    end or    foo(bar) { block } but it's only an issue when you leave out the parantheses. The styling convention is that the curly braces are used for one-line blocks and the do..end for multi-line blocks    foo { make\_me\_a\_bar }    bar do      foo = Foo.new      pass\_the\_foo(foo)      do\_something\_else    end Cheers, Daniel ---
**Author:** ![MenTaLguY](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MenTaLguY](https://rubytalk.org/u/MenTaLguY)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 15:27 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/5 "2005-12-08T15:27:13Z")
Quoting Joe Van Dyk [joevandyk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org](mailto:joevandyk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org): > 5.times { |i| puts i } > > 5.times do |i| > puts i > end > Generally people save do … end for multiline stuff. Don’t think > there’s a difference in speed. I can promise there’s no speed difference. They both parse to the same thing: (iter (call (lit #\<5\>) times) (dasgn\_curr i) (fcall puts (array (dvar i)))) (iter (call (lit #\<5\>) times) (dasgn\_curr i) (fcall puts (array (dvar i)))) However, {} and do…end are not totally interchangable as syntax. These are all equivalent: obj.meth( 1, 2 ) { |i| puts i } obj.meth( 1, 2 ) do |i| puts i end obj.meth 1, 2 do |i| puts i end But this will net you a parse error (‘2’ is not a valid method name): obj.meth 1, 2 { |i| puts i } And these two parse equivalently: obj.meth 1, zog { |i| puts i } obj.meth( 1, zog { |i| puts i } ) Think of {} as being more “clingy” than do…end. Basically, {} has higher precedence than do…end, just as (among otherwise equivalent operators) && has higher precedence than ‘and’, and || has higher precedence than ‘or’. I’m sure Ter hates Ruby now. 🙂 -mental ---
**Author:** ![Terence\_Parr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4da419/32.png) [@Terence\_Parr](https://rubytalk.org/u/Terence_Parr)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 22:44 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/6 "2005-12-08T22:44:41Z")
> But this will net you a parse error (‘2’ is not a valid method > name): > > obj.meth 1, 2 { |i| > puts i > } Yikes! Not sure what’s up there. What does the {…} bind to then? The 2? If so, why is 2 considered a method. > And these two parse equivalently: > > obj.meth 1, zog { |i| > puts i > } > > obj.meth( 1, zog { |i| puts i } ) > > Think of {} as being more “clingy” than do…end. That I can parse mentally. 🙂 > Basically, {} has higher precedence than do…end, just as (among > otherwise equivalent operators) && has higher precedence than > ‘and’, and || has higher precedence than ‘or’. > > I’m sure Ter hates Ruby now. 🙂 Well, I am trying to ignore edge cases while I learn the language 😉 Starting with the warts is probably not a good idea 😉 Ter > **···** > > On Dec 8, 2005, at 7:27 AM, [mental-uFjFfPRxV21eoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org](mailto:mental-uFjFfPRxV21eoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org) wrote: ---
**Author:** ![James\_Edward\_Gray\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ea5d25/32.png) [@James\_Edward\_Gray\_II](https://rubytalk.org/u/James_Edward_Gray_II)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 14:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/7 "2005-12-08T14:47:02Z")
Another convention some use is that { ... } are for the times when you care about the return value and do ... end is for when you're interested in the side effects. For example: sum = [1, 2, 3].inject { |sum, n| sum + n } # return value File.open("total.txt", "w") do |file| # side effects    file.puts sum end James Edward Gray II > **···** > > On Dec 8, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Joe Van Dyk wrote: > > > On 12/8/05, Steve Litt \ wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > It looks to me like when you use an iterator (each for instance), you can make > > > the block either from a do/end pair, or from curly braces. All things being > > > equal, I'd greatly prefer to use do/end. Are there any differences in runtime > > > speed, capabilities, or Rubyness? > > > > Typically, > > > > 5.times { |i| puts i } > > > > 5.times do |i| > >   puts i > > end > > > > Generally people save do .. end for multiline stuff. Don't think > > there's a difference in speed. ---
**Author:** ![MenTaLguY](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MenTaLguY](https://rubytalk.org/u/MenTaLguY)\ **Post date:** [9 December 2005 06:33 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/8 "2005-12-09T06:33:30Z")
Binds to the 2, yes. But then it fails to match, as 2 isn’t a method. It should also fail if there were an lvar rather than a private method call in that position. That’s an interesting question actually … how it matches enough to bind, but not enough to succeed. -mental > **···** > > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 14:44 -0800, Terence Parr wrote: > > > On Dec 8, 2005, at 7:27 AM, [mental-uFjFfPRxV21eoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org](mailto:mental-uFjFfPRxV21eoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org) wrote: > > > > > But this will net you a parse error (‘2’ is not a valid method > > > name): > > > > > > obj.meth 1, 2 { |i| > > > puts i > > > } > > > > Yikes! Not sure what’s up there. What does the {…} bind to then? > > The 2? If so, why is 2 considered a method. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_DeMello1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3be4f8/32.png) [@Martin\_DeMello1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Martin_DeMello1)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 17:27 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/9 "2005-12-08T17:27:36Z")
matchit.vim martin > **···** > > Joe Van Dyk \ wrote: > > > Sometimes people who use vim use only braces for vim's matching > > capabilities, although didn't someone fix that for do..end? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Litt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Steve\_Litt](https://rubytalk.org/u/Steve_Litt)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 22:36 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/10 "2005-12-08T22:36:51Z")
> Steve Litt wrote: > \> Hi all, > \> > \> It looks to me like when you use an iterator (each for instance), you can > \> make the block either from a do/end pair, or from curly braces. All > \> things being equal, I'd greatly prefer to use do/end. Are there any > \> differences in runtime speed, capabilities, or Rubyness? > > There's a slight difference in how they're parsed. > >    foo bar { block } > > is the same as > >    foo(bar { block }) > > while > >    foo bar do >      block >    end > > is the same as > >    foo(bar) do >      block >    end > > or > >    foo(bar) { block } > > but it's only an issue when you leave out the parantheses. Except I can't put in the parentheses: #!/usr/bin/ruby my\_array = ["alpha", "beta", "gamma"] puts (my\_array.collect do   \>word\>   word.capitalize end) Output: [slitt@mydesk slitt]$ ./test.rb ./test.rb:3: syntax error ./test.rb:6: syntax error [slitt@mydesk slitt]$ Thanks SteveT > **···** > > On Thursday 08 December 2005 10:07 am, Daniel Schierbeck wrote: > > > The styling > > convention is that the curly braces are used for one-line blocks and the > > do..end for multi-line blocks > > > >    foo { make\_me\_a\_bar } > >    bar do > >      foo = Foo.new > >      pass\_the\_foo(foo) > >      do\_something\_else > >    end > > > > Cheers, > > Daniel > > -- > Steve Litt > > > **[Troubleshooters.Com](http://www.troubleshooters.com)** > > > > The process and mindset of troubleshooting. > > slitt@troubleshooters.com ---
**Author:** ![Yohanes\_Santoso1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ccd318/32.png) [@Yohanes\_Santoso1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Yohanes_Santoso1)\ **Post date:** [9 December 2005 14:59 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/11 "2005-12-09T14:59:36Z")
Joe Van Dyk \ writes: > Generally people save do .. end for multiline stuff. Don't think I am not sure why Pickaxe mentioned this convention that is based on LOC factor rather than one that is based on intent. Basing it on LOC is silly, IMO. It really is more suitable for languages that are white-space sensitive. Consider you wrote: foo.bar {|a| zoo(a)} Oh, further down the road you realise that it is valuable to log the value of a or perhaps you are simply reformatting your code. foo.bar {|a|   log.debug(a)   zoo(a) } Whoops, that's out of the convention. Your eyes are itchy at that, so you spent some time fixing it like: foo.bar do |a|    log.debug(a)    zoo(a) end Later on, you decided that logging the value of a is frivolous, so you changed it again: foo.bar do |a| zoo(a) end That violates the convention as well, so you do yet another do-end to {} transformation foo.bar {|a| zoo(a)} All that works is just for one method call. Imagine if there are more, and there are likely to be more. Basing it on intent (return value or side-effect or what-have-you) seems a more rational guideline. For certain, that would make code reformatting a more pleasurable exercise. YS. ---
**Author:** ![Neil\_Stevens](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Neil\_Stevens](https://rubytalk.org/u/Neil_Stevens)\ **Post date:** [9 December 2005 17:07 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/12 "2005-12-09T17:07:36Z")
Joe Van Dyk wrote: > Generally people save do .. end for multiline stuff. Don't think > there's a difference in speed. I use do .. end always. I find it easier to read, and more in line with the other foo .. end structures in ruby. > **···** > > -- > Neil Stevens - neil@hakubi.us > > 'A republic, if you can keep it.' -- Benjamin Franklin ---
**Author:** ![J-Van](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bc8723/32.png) [@J-Van](https://rubytalk.org/u/J-Van)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 14:54 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/13 "2005-12-08T14:54:02Z")
Good point. And also use { ... } if you want to do crazy chains like [1, 2, 3].collect { |a| i \* a }.each { |a| puts a } Joe > **···** > > On 12/8/05, James Edward Gray II \ wrote: > > > On Dec 8, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Joe Van Dyk wrote: > > > > \> On 12/8/05, Steve Litt \ wrote: > > \>\> Hi all, > > \>\> > > \>\> It looks to me like when you use an iterator (each for instance), > > \>\> you can make > > \>\> the block either from a do/end pair, or from curly braces. All > > \>\> things being > > \>\> equal, I'd greatly prefer to use do/end. Are there any differences > > \>\> in runtime > > \>\> speed, capabilities, or Rubyness? > > \> > > \> Typically, > > \> > > \> 5.times { |i| puts i } > > \> > > \> 5.times do |i| > > \> puts i > > \> end > > \> > > \> Generally people save do .. end for multiline stuff. Don't think > > \> there's a difference in speed. > > > > Another convention some use is that { ... } are for the times when > > you care about the return value and do ... end is for when you're > > interested in the side effects. For example: > > > > sum = [1, 2, 3].inject { |sum, n| sum + n } # return value > > > > File.open("total.txt", "w") do |file| # side effects > >    file.puts sum > > end ---
**Author:** ![Jacob\_Fugal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@Jacob\_Fugal](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jacob_Fugal)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 23:06 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/14 "2005-12-08T23:06:08Z")
> Except I can't put in the parentheses: > > #!/usr/bin/ruby > my\_array = ["alpha", "beta", "gamma"] > puts (my\_array.collect do >         \>word\> >         word.capitalize > end) > > Output: > [slitt@mydesk slitt]$ ./test.rb > ./test.rb:3: syntax error > ./test.rb:6: syntax error Take out the space between puts and the open paren: ~$ cat test.rb my\_array = ["alpha", "beta", "gamma"] puts(my\_array.collect do   \>word\>   word.capitalize end) ~$ ruby test.rb Alpha Beta Gamma Jacob Fugal > **···** > > On 12/8/05, Steve Litt \ wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Cedilotte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c0e974/32.png) [@Daniel\_Cedilotte](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Cedilotte)\ **Post date:** [9 December 2005 15:21 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/15 "2005-12-09T15:21:41Z")
Yohanes Santoso wrote: > Joe Van Dyk \ writes: > > > Generally people save do .. end for multiline stuff. Don't think > >     > > I am not sure why Pickaxe mentioned this convention that is based > > on LOC factor rather than one that is based on intent. > > Basing it on LOC is silly, IMO. It really is more suitable for > languages that are white-space sensitive. > > Consider you wrote: > > foo.bar {|a| zoo(a)} > > Oh, further down the road you realise that it is valuable to log the > value of a or perhaps you are simply reformatting your code. > > foo.bar {|a| > log.debug(a) > zoo(a) > } > > Whoops, that's out of the convention. Your eyes are itchy at that, so > you spent some time fixing it like: > > foo.bar do |a| >   log.debug(a) >   zoo(a) > end > > Later on, you decided that logging the value of a is frivolous, so you > changed it again: > > foo.bar do |a| zoo(a) end > > That violates the convention as well, so you do yet another do-end to > {} transformation > > foo.bar {|a| zoo(a)} > > All that works is just for one method call. Imagine if there are more, > and there are likely to be more. > > Basing it on intent (return value or side-effect or what-have-you) > seems a more rational guideline. For certain, that would make code > reformatting a more pleasurable exercise. > > YS. In the end doesn't it all come up to a matter of preference? I prefer the curly braces, others prefer do..end. In my book its a matter of versatility of the language. Which in turn is a verry nice feature, IMHO. Daniel C. ---
**Author:** ![Ezra\_Zygmuntowicz4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@Ezra\_Zygmuntowicz4](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ezra_Zygmuntowicz4)\ **Post date:** [9 December 2005 18:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/16 "2005-12-09T18:24:10Z")
Yohanes-   I have been using this link[1] for converting between do .. end and {..} in vim and it works great. Thought I would share. Cheers- -Ezra Zygmuntowicz Yakima Herald-Republic WebMaster > **[yakimaherald.com | Yakima, Washington - We Tell Your Stories](https://www.yakimaherald.com/)** 509-577-7732 ezra@yakima-herald.com [1] [http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?Ruby+block+conversion+macros+for+Vim](http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?Ruby+block+conversion+macros+for+Vim) > **···** > > On Dec 9, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Yohanes Santoso wrote: > > > Joe Van Dyk \ writes: > > > > > Generally people save do .. end for multiline stuff. Don't think ---
**Author:** ![J-Van](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bc8723/32.png) [@J-Van](https://rubytalk.org/u/J-Van)\ **Post date:** [8 December 2005 14:54 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/17 "2005-12-08T14:54:39Z")
Oops, that first 'i' should be an 'a'. > **···** > > On 12/8/05, Joe Van Dyk \ wrote: > > > On 12/8/05, James Edward Gray II \ wrote: > > \> On Dec 8, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Joe Van Dyk wrote: > > \> > > \> \> On 12/8/05, Steve Litt \ wrote: > > \> \>\> Hi all, > > \> \>\> > > \> \>\> It looks to me like when you use an iterator (each for instance), > > \> \>\> you can make > > \> \>\> the block either from a do/end pair, or from curly braces. All > > \> \>\> things being > > \> \>\> equal, I'd greatly prefer to use do/end. Are there any differences > > \> \>\> in runtime > > \> \>\> speed, capabilities, or Rubyness? > > \> \> > > \> \> Typically, > > \> \> > > \> \> 5.times { |i| puts i } > > \> \> > > \> \> 5.times do |i| > > \> \> puts i > > \> \> end > > \> \> > > \> \> Generally people save do .. end for multiline stuff. Don't think > > \> \> there's a difference in speed. > > \> > > \> Another convention some use is that { ... } are for the times when > > \> you care about the return value and do ... end is for when you're > > \> interested in the side effects. For example: > > \> > > \> sum = [1, 2, 3].inject { |sum, n| sum + n } # return value > > \> > > \> File.open("total.txt", "w") do |file| # side effects > > \> file.puts sum > > \> end > > > > Good point. And also use { ... } if you want to do crazy chains like > > > > [1, 2, 3].collect { |a| i \* a }.each { |a| puts a } ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Litt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Steve\_Litt](https://rubytalk.org/u/Steve_Litt)\ **Post date:** [9 December 2005 01:11 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/18 "2005-12-09T01:11:29Z")
Confirmed! Thanks Jacob. This is the first time I've seen Ruby conflict with the Rule of Least Surprise ([http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch11s01.html\](http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch11s01.html%5C)). Is there any chance of a Ruby change so as not to require the paren to be flush up against the function name? Thanks SteveT Steve Litt > **[Troubleshooters.Com](http://www.troubleshooters.com)** > > The process and mindset of troubleshooting. slitt@troubleshooters.com > **···** > > On Thursday 08 December 2005 06:06 pm, Jacob Fugal wrote: > > > On 12/8/05, Steve Litt \ wrote: > > \> Except I can't put in the parentheses: > > \> > > \> #!/usr/bin/ruby > > \> my\_array = ["alpha", "beta", "gamma"] > > \> puts (my\_array.collect do > > \> > > \> \>word\> > > \> > > \> word.capitalize > > \> end) > > \> > > \> Output: > > \> [slitt@mydesk slitt]$ ./test.rb > > \> ./test.rb:3: syntax error > > \> ./test.rb:6: syntax error > > > > Take out the space between puts and the open paren: ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@Gary\_Wright](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gary_Wright)\ **Post date:** [9 December 2005 16:35 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/19 "2005-12-09T16:35:06Z")
I find the different precedence useful. If I have a method call written without parens, which is common in 'imperative style' ruby, it is very useful to have the do/block not bind to the last argument. Such as rake tasks: task :test do    ruby "test/unittest.rb" end > **···** > > On Dec 9, 2005, at 10:21 AM, Daniel Cedilotte wrote: > > > In the end doesn't it all come up to a matter of preference? I prefer the curly braces, others prefer do..end. In my book its a matter of versatility of the language. Which in turn is a verry nice feature, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Yohanes\_Santoso1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ccd318/32.png) [@Yohanes\_Santoso1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Yohanes_Santoso1)\ **Post date:** [9 December 2005 19:45 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116/20 "2005-12-09T19:45:07Z")
Ezra Zygmuntowicz \ writes: > Yohanes- > >   I have been using this link[1] for converting between do > .. end and {..} in vim and it works great. Thought I would share. Thank you for the thought, although I can't use that as I'm using emacs, not vim. I also have a similar function that does that in emacs, but that's beside my point. My point is, that Pickaxe is recommending a convention that compels the programmer to do something when the LOC changes, unexpected. They could have recommended a convention that is not based on LOC. YS. [Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/do-end-vs-braces/23116.md?page=2)