On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:46:03 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Rick, you're supposedly familiar with Ruby. And yet, you > didn't notice that your supposed "fix" didn't touch any > executable code, all it did was modify the strings being > printed.
Because the goal was to *UN-OBFUSCATE* the code, not to provide a solution for the problem _you_ created. > Because of this "fix", the printed strings no longer match > the code being executed, but the strange, inconsistent > behaviour still occurs. The supposed "inconsistent behavior" here has absolutely nothing to do with Ruby, no, it's all on _you_. _YOU_ are the one who created a non-sensical function with a single char name; and _YOU_ are the one who placed a call to that function in the middle of an expression, which, on first glance, looks to be a common numeric addition or string concatenation. There are no syntactical clues that `a` is a function. Thus, it is _YOU_ who is to blame for the supposed "unexpected output". Ruby followed the rules. But you didn't. Like a mad scientist you injected obfuscation into your source code and then blamed Ruby because your poor naming conventions and your clumsily formed expressions did not produce the "purdy little result" you expected. Congratulations, you have forsaken the most vital principle of good programming -> Readability Counts!. "Code is read more often than it is written" (ring a bell?). No self-respecting professional programmer would ever write in such a manner. Its the kind of crapola that will get you fired in 2 seconds. Yet, here you are -- THE GREAT AND POWERFUL D'APRANO -- thumping your chest over this horrendous code and acting as if we should be proud of you. Yip of the day: No one is proud of you. > Here's the code again: No thanks. I've seen more than i care to see of your little "examples". > Of course we can solve the problem by always using > parentheses when making function calls. I'm sorry, but _we_ are not required to solve the problems _you_ create. _You_ made that mess, and now _you_ can clean it up. > But that misses the point that Ruby allows this > inconsistency in the first place. Hmm, i see. And if the operator of an automobile purposesly drives off a cliff, who do you blame: driver or manufacturer? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
