Recently I had a similar problem. After some refactoring of code
I rewrote the code with two (non-existing, but very DRY operators)
I had those two cases:
foo = bar if !bar.nil? # (case 1) or
foo = bar if foo.nil? && !bar.nil? # (case 2)
and rewrote them into:
foo ??= bar # case 1
foo !!= bar # case 2
While this is not the same as your problem, it is quite similar.
I looks as this is not a completely isolated problem. Probably
because so many want to DRY their code. It looks like baroqueness
of code can survive only in the names of methods and variables
Alfred
···
On Aug 29, 1:25 am, Jay Levitt <j...@jay.fm> wrote:
I know I can use "a ||= b" to assign b to a if a is nil.
How did you do that, given that those operators are (as you say) non-
existing, and the code in your resulting code produces a syntax error
(under 1.8.6, anyhow)? Did you modify the Ruby source?
···
On Aug 31, 12:40 am, aalfred <alfred.anzlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Recently I had a similar problem. After some refactoring of code
I rewrote the code with two (non-existing, but very DRY operators)
I had those two cases:
foo = bar if !bar.nil? # (case 1) or
foo = bar if foo.nil? && !bar.nil? # (case 2)
> Recently I had a similar problem. After some refactoring of code
> I rewrote the code with two (non-existing, but very DRY operators)
>
> I had those two cases:
>
> foo = bar if !bar.nil? # (case 1) or
> foo = bar if foo.nil? && !bar.nil? # (case 2)
>
> and rewrote them into:
>
> foo ??= bar # case 1
> foo !!= bar # case 2
How did you do that, given that those operators are (as you say) non-
existing, and the code in your resulting code produces a syntax error
(under 1.8.6, anyhow)? Did you modify the Ruby source?
I don't think he did any such thing. I think when he says he rewrote
it, he means just that, he rewrote it, not that it actually worked or
anything
···
On 9/2/07, Phrogz <phrogz@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 12:40 am, aalfred <alfred.anzlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, I did not modify ruby source (for "it is not the right thing" :).
What I did was just cleaning (DRYing) up the code. And as Logan
correctly
observed came to that 'code'. Since it cannot be done in the way I
wrote
it by adding two methods to the foo class which did the trick.
But it looks like others are bumping into similar/same repeating
patterns,
so something like that would be nice to have
Alfred
···
On Sep 2, 5:00 pm, "Logan Capaldo" <logancapa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How did you do that, given that those operators are (as you say) non-
> existing, and the code in your resulting code produces a syntax error
> (under 1.8.6, anyhow)? Did you modify the Ruby source?
I don't think he did any such thing. I think when he says he rewrote
it, he means just that, he rewrote it, not that it actually worked or
anything
