[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ruby-talk
Subject:    Re: Need examples comparing Ruby to Python
From:       Hal Fulton <hal9000 () hypermetrics ! com>
Date:       2004-02-24 20:06:02
Message-ID: 403BAEA4.5090209 () hypermetrics ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

David MacQuigg wrote:

> I'm not seeing any fundamental advantage of Ruby blocks over Python
> functions.  If your block is more than one line, or needs a print
> statement, just give it a name and let it be a function.  lambda's are
> used only for very short blocks, where for example, you want to pass a
> simple function in an argument list, but don't want to waste a line
> giving that function a name.

David,

The *last* thing I want is to start a flame war, especially since my
knowledge of Python is practically zero.

But I had to laugh at that statement -- "if your block is more than
one line, or needs a print statement, just give it a name and let it
be a function."

I'm not saying that your arguments are ridiculous or laughable -- I'm
just saying there is obviously some very fundamental disconnect between
your thinking and mine. I'd like to discover the nature of that
disconnect.

Here is a simple example of a block that is both multi-line and has a
print statement. (Granted it could be done in one line.)

   words.each do |word|
     consonants = word.gsub(/[aeiou]/,"")
     puts consonants
   end

How would you do that with a named function, and why would the new way
be better?

If I do:

   def func(word)
     consonants = word.gsub(/[aeiou]/,"")
     puts consonants
   end

   words.each {|word| func(word) }

then I have still used a block, one that happens to call a function
(with a name) that will only be used once.

Is this better than the other way?


Thanks,
Hal


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]