Jacob Fugal wrote:
> Let me clarify.
>
> * I don't mind you golfing on the list/newsgroup.
> * I don't mind you golfing about this task.
What egregious arrogance! Let me clarify. What you mind
doesn't matter.
I didn't say it did. I was just clarifying *my opinion*. When I asked
for no golfing in that thread, it was because in *my opinion* it was
off-topic for that thread. When you called me on the statement, I
thought I better clarify *my opinion*, hence I clarified while using
the pronoun "I". You can discard *my opinion* and I don't care. Don't
call me arrogant, however, for responding to a personal query with a
clarification of *my opinion*.
> What I do mind is threads that were not intended as golfing threads
> being hijacked into a golf contest.
I'm a wicked hijacker. I know I am because Mr. Fugal told me so.
I never used the word wicked; please don't put words in my mouth.
Hijacking a newgroup thread is not evil, wicked or in any way morally
wrong.
> If I were the OP and posted a
> question, then later saw a new post in the thread stemming from that
> question, I'd expect useful input or discussion regarding my question.
> I am especially touchy about this when golfing replies are posted in
> response to a newbie question. While golf can be fun, we don't want
> the newbie to get the wrong idea that the techniques used in the golf
> are representative of how the code *should* be written.
If you didn't want to mislead the newbie, why did you say:
'String#chomp! is a "destructive" operation. This means that it acts in
place on its receiver and, in this case, returns nil.'
Because I made a mistake. I'm glad that someone caught the mistake and
brought it to light. I have learned from it.
If you didn't want to mislead the newbie, why did you post this:
def chomper
xx = gets.chomp
until xx == "qq"
puts "hit me with a squirell!"
xx
end
end
puts chomper
Even if there was a way for the loop to terminate, xx would not
be returned. It has to be moved outside of the loop.
Extremely misleading. Extremely confusing to a newbie.
Because I was focusing on the difference between chomp and chomp!,
about which I was mistake anyways. If you compare that code against
Johns original example you'll find one difference in one character:
the removal of the !. I made that one change because I believed,
mistakenly, that the difference between chomp and chomp! is what was
breaking my code. After jumping to that premature and mistaken
conclusion, I didn't take the time to proof the rest of his method. I
apologize for any confusion that may have caused.
And it was extremely arrogant to post untested
code.
No, it wasn't. It was lazy, yes. It was a mistake, yes. But not arrogant.
Furthermore, it was extremely rude as well as incredibly arrogant
to assert falsely that my code wouldn't work correctly when
you had not condescended to test it.
Again, that was based on my incorrect assumption about chomp! always
returning nil. I made a mistake. I apologize. I was not trying to be
rude, just helpful.
Much better than the above code is:
def chomper
puts "Hit me!" while gets.chomp! != "qq"
$_
end
It is superior in three ways.
1. It is correct.
2. It is clearer.
3. It is shorter.
I would argue point 2, but only due to personal taste. I concede points 1 and 3.
Naturally, Mr. Fugal's arrogance compels him to dismiss
my version by using the term "golf", hoping that you will
assume that "golf" is a Bad Thing.
I did not dismiss your version because I thought it was golf. I
dismissed it because I thought, mistakenly, that is was incorrect. For
that I apologize.
Nor have I said golf is a Bad Thing; witness my clarification to which
you have responded.
Newbies, don't be afraid of $_. Matz didn't include it in Ruby
in order to tempt the unwary into becoming "evil golfers".
He included it because it is useful. Of course, Mr. Fugal's
arrogance leads him to believe that his opinion outweighs
Matz's.
I never said golfing was evil. I never said or implied that Matz made
a mistake by including $_. I never said or implied that $_ is not
useful. And I definitely never said or implied that my opinion
outweighs that of Matz. Please do not attribute views to me that I do
not hold.
I discouraged the use of $_ because I believe it to be less readable
than using a named variable. Indeed, John's original post asked for a
way to incorporate a variable into his solution in place of the $_.
Jacob Fugal
···
On 2/3/06, William James <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote:
