Read this post ‘unless’ you’re not a Ruby developer

Re:Read this post ‘unless’ you’re not a Ruby developer by burke on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @10:48AM (#33970409)

On this note: I’m sad ruby style guides generally ban “and” and “or”.

   raise(“a long error string”) unless valid

This reads much worse, when the string pushes the line near max width, than:

    valid or raise(“..

Of course it’s another idiom to learn but it’s not a difficult one when used simply.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Read this post ‘unless’ you’re not a Ruby developer by klodolph on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @11:07AM (#33970720)

That’s a very Perl idiom, did you previously write Perl?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Read this post ‘unless’ you’re not a Ruby developer by burke on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @10:25AM (#33984720)

No, I just think for all ruby is bought into these guard clauses, it's sad that we generally reject the feature that allows putting either the condition or the consequence first, depending on which reads better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Read this post ‘unless’ you’re not a Ruby developer by graywh on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @12:49PM (#33972696)

the 2nd form implicitly returns the value of valid if it's truthy and nil if it's falsey; the 1st form always returns nil

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Read this post ‘unless’ you’re not a Ruby developer by burke on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @10:24AM (#33984704)

Indeed, but the return value of a guard clause shouldn't be important!

[ Parent | on HN ]