+1 I can see myself explaining this to a Java dev without seeing eyes rolling.
On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Alex Boisvert wrote: > After mulling over this (and writing but not sending a long email about the > finer semantics I was originally thinking about), I think I'll simplify my > proposal down to, > > task.after [:foo, :bar] do > # ... > end > > which would be exactly like task.enhance, except it would also accept a > single task (i.e., non-array argument.) The block remains optional. > > And secondly, > > task.before [:foo, :bar] do > # ... > end > > would be equivalent to: > > task.enhance do > # ... > end > > task(:foo).enhance [task] > task(:bar).enhance [task] > > Hopefully this is clearer than my previous proposal and promotes better > design. (And I think that what some of you expected the first time around.) > > Makes sense? > > alex
