Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify when to use if-case returns #734

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

wrs
Copy link
Contributor

@wrs wrs commented Jan 9, 2019

There are two contradictory guidelines that shouldn't really be contradictory.

  • Favor the ternary operator(?:) over if/then/else/end constructs.
  • Leverage the fact that if and case are expressions which return a result.

This adds a little more color on when to use one or the other.

@@ -1134,8 +1135,10 @@ Translations of the guide are available in the following languages:
```

* <a name="use-if-case-returns"></a>
Leverage the fact that `if` and `case` are expressions which return a
result.
When assigning a value that depends on a conditional, when
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with the premise, but not with the wording. This long sentence is very hard to process and should probably be broken down into 2-3 sentences.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems like this is really two rules:

(a) When doing an assignment that depends on a conditional, don't repeat the assignment statement in an if/then, use a conditional expression instead.

(b) When assigning a conditional expression, choose to use a ternary operator or an if/then expression based on the complexity of the expression.

I'm not sure the best way to accomplish that. I'd suggest restructuring the section to have two rules just like (a) and (b), but I'm assuming it's hard to change existing rules since Rubocop and others may use the anchor names. (No?)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants