a matter of style

[dblack]

Hi --

100% surprised (maybe I do not grasp the semantics of debate, it means
discussion, right?)

It usually implies an outcome: someone "wins".

Sorry for intervening with that, but I will just be clear again:
David's the guy to follow when in doubt, if you prefer my style you
prefer it anyway but be warned neverheless .

David has probably read and written 100 times the Ruby Code I have
read and written (catching up though. As he I do not think it is a
contest, maybe I was confusing the ML with a chat forum a little
bit...
I was not trying to do this but you make me aware that I was talking
too much, point taken.

Over and out

I didn't mean to say you'd said too much -- just thinking that this is
the kind of topic where people (not you specifically) get into these
long, aimless ping-pong matches which don't actually result in
anything, and hoping to avert that (again, not you specifically).


David

--
* Books:
RAILS ROUTING (new! http://safari.awprofessional.com/9780321509246)
RUBY FOR RAILS (http://www.manning.com/black)
* Ruby/Rails training
& consulting: Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)

 

[Chad Perrin]

I think Chad's point stands. It seems whatever is encapsulated in the
enum's find search code would be better off as a method on that
object. That would make the test cleaner and then there won't be any
worry about block style precedence.

Actually, I think you assumed more meaning in what I said than I
intended. The same goes for the previous poster, too. I didn't mean
that the precedence diference wouldn't or shouldn't prompt you to choose
wisely between do...end and {...} syntaxes -- only that the difference in
precedence *between the two* isn't something I'd seen, or probably should
see. I mean precedence "between the two" in the same way I'd mean it in
relation to + and * operators: when stringing things together, the
precedence of + and * in relation to one another becomes important, such
as in this case of potentially ambiguous intent:
1 + 2 * 4