Hi, On Nov 18, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Alex Boisvert wrote:
> The idea is that they happen either before/after 'enhance' blocks, with no > specified ordering between before blocks or after blocks. So how would "after" be different from "enhance"? It sounds like afters would be like enhance blocks, except that they'd be guaranteed to happen after all the enhances (which are guaranteed to happen in evaluation order) and they would be in an undefined order. If you can define multiple afters, this sounds like a recipe for confusion -- when should I use enhance and when after? After all, when I use "enhance" now, what I mean is "run this code after that task." > > In your example, the result would be either ["bar", "baz", "foo"] or ["baz", > "bar", "foo"]. I think this contradicts what you said first -- if the before blocks execute before the enhances, doesn't that mean that they execute _after_ the original task? If the execute before the main task, what can you do with them that you can't do with task dependencies? I guess that's a general question -- what problem is this new syntax trying to solve? > > In that sense before/after do not compose as well as task dependencies and > it's generally better design to use the latter when possible. That seems so. Thanks for considering my questions. Rhett > > alex > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Rhett Sutphin > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Is the idea with these changes that you'd only be able to have one >> first/firstly/before block and one last/lastly/after block? Or to ask >> another way -- what would happen if you do >> >> task(:foo) do >> puts "foo" >> end >> >> task(:foo).before do >> puts "bar" >> end >> >> task(:foo).before do >> puts "baz" >> end >> >> ? >> >> Rhett >> >> On Nov 18, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Peter Donald wrote: >> >>> Or maybe before/after ala >>> >>> task(:foo).before do >>> # block will be executed before 'enhance' blocks >>> end >>> >>> task(:foo).after do >>> # block will be executed after 'enhance' blocks >>> end >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Peter Donald <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>> I was initially thinking about do_first and do_last but though the "do" >> was >>>>> redundant with Ruby's do ... end notation. Do you think that's >> better? >>>> >>>> Not greatly. Maybe firstly and lastly? >>>> >>>> task(:foo).firstly do >>>> # block will be executed before 'enhance' blocks >>>> end >>>> >>>> task(:foo).lastly do >>>> # block will be executed after 'enhance' blocks >>>> end >>>> >>>> That way it does not double up the "do" word and doesn't look like an >>>> enumeration. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Peter Donald >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Peter Donald >> >>
