I like having the options of using the syntax sugar (when appropriate) of returning and with_options. I totally agree that the framework can do without due these idioms due to performance requirements but as an app developer I'd like the option where cleanliness/beauty is valued more than a small speedup.
Zack On 9/4/07, Stephen Caudill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fixed this in r511. > > I still think there's a time and a place for that pattern. It's not > magical and it follows a clear precedent in good OO design. It is > decidedly *not* as performant as it's sometimes longer handed > counterpart, but Ruby is a language in which the value of being > succinct is frequently more important than being very fast. I'd > rather not sacrifice a bit of beauty in my code for a few > milliseconds parsing difference, since most of the overhead occurs in > method dispatch. > > just my 2ยข > > -- > > Stephen Caudill (voxdolo) > > On Sep 4, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Brian Candler wrote: > > > The following construct is an ActiveSupport-ism: > > > > returning(Foo.new) do |foo| > > ... > > end > > > > I don't especially like it, since it's both more verbose and less > > efficient > > than the direct alternative: > > > > foo = Foo.new > > ... > > foo > > > > It doesn't occur many times in Merb, so does anyone agree with me > > that it > > should be removed? > > > > I tried doing this (patch attached) and I find the code more readable > > without. For example, in lib/merb/mixins/responder.rb > > > > Before: > > > > def <=>(entry) > > returning((entry.quality <=> quality).to_s) do |c| > > c.replace((index <=> entry.index).to_s) if c == '0' > > end.to_i > > end > > > > After: > > > > def <=>(entry) > > c = (entry.quality <=> quality).to_s > > c.replace((index <=> entry.index).to_s) if c == '0' > > c.to_i > > end > > > > This second form also more clearly begs the question, why is the > > result from > > <=> being converted to string and then back to integer? I don't > > know the > > answer to that :-) > > > > I believe the attached patch is OK - it doesn't break any specs. It > > doesn't > > remove the definition of Object#returning itself, or its spec. > > > > Regards, > > > > Brian. > > <merb-returning.diff> > > _______________________________________________ > > Merb-devel mailing list > > Merb-devel@rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/merb-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Merb-devel mailing list > Merb-devel@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/merb-devel > _______________________________________________ Merb-devel mailing list Merb-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/merb-devel
