Ok, yes...but if your intention with this feature request is simply to treat the multiple-assignment statement as a whole as the test condition, you can already do that like so: ~~~ if _ = (a, b = *multi_ret_val_meth) puts "Multi-...jballanc (Joshua Ballanco)
Yes, but consider: ~~~ if a = (b, c = false, false) puts "a is #{a}, b is #{b}, c is #{c} and everything together is true" end ~~~ So if you were hoping to use multiple assignment to check the `&&`-ed boolean values of the in...jballanc (Joshua Ballanco)
Which of the multiple values assigned would you have used as the test for the conditional? ~~~ if (a, b = true, false) puts "Should this run?" else puts "Or this?" end ~~~jballanc (Joshua Ballanco)
Tsuyoshi Sawada wrote: > What is the point of defining a private accessor method? You can directly refer to the instance variables without using accessors. The example I gave was just one case of "code in the wild" that would benefit...jballanc (Joshua Ballanco)
With Ruby 2.1 returning a symbol from `def` and `define_method`, that leaves `attr`, `attr_reader`, `attr_writer`, and `attr_accessor` as ways to define methods that still return nil. This is unfortunate, because it prevents the use of m...jballanc (Joshua Ballanco)
As a point of comparison, I've often heard members of the Python community refer to the original implementation as "CPython". Also, not that this should necessarily carry any weight, but it's worth noting that CPython has its own page on...jballanc (Joshua Ballanco)
Just to throw my 2ยข in... I think the main benefit to returning a symbol from `def` is that it enables the use of method decorators. Similarly, I would be in favor of returning the class defined from `class` so that we could also buil...jballanc (Joshua Ballanco)
You can already accomplish something like this yourself: ```ruby begin raise "Hello!" rescue Exception => e puts e.backtrace.reverse.join("\n") puts e.message end ``` Simple! jballanc (Joshua Ballanco)