3 ms·

This seems to be a popular style in javascript (particularly when using jQuery), but it's not actually valid ruby (edit: ruby 1.8.7, that is - see reply). The f

by jordoh 14y ago

This seems to be a popular style in javascript (particularly when using jQuery), but it's not actually valid ruby (edit: ruby 1.8.7, that is - see reply). The first line forms a valid statement, so the dots would need to be at the end of each line to indicate a line continuation. So it would need to be: names.select { |name| name.start_with?("S") }. map { |name| name.upcase }. sort. join(', ') Which is slightly more annoying in that you need to modify two lines to add a new chained line (the line you are adding and the dot added to the previous line). This also creates a mild headache when refactoring, as any change to the length of the "names" variable would force you to re-align the entire chain. You could do something like: names. select { |name| name.start_with?("S") }. map { |name| name.upcase }. sort. join(', ')

rauljara 14y ago
> but it's not actually valid ruby. You are correct that it is invalid for 1.8.6. The code runs just fine in 1.9, though. I take advantage of many things that don't work in 1.8.6, so I'm not particularly concerned with my method chaining breaking compatibility. I prefer the more-than-2-spaces indentation because, by the shape of the code, it is clearer to me that this is a method chain and not a change in control structure. That is also obvious by actually reading the code, though, so I'm fine putting that down to personal preference.
- jordoh 14y ago
  Great to know about 1.9 - just looked through the 1.9 changelog and saw it described as "Newlines allowed before ternary colon operator (:) and method call dot operator (.)", so it does seem like they are encouraging this specific formatting style. I agree that the fully indented code is much easier to visually parse - whether that outweighs the refactoring cost is certainly going to vary depending on the team (in addition to personal preference, as you mention).

by jordoh 14y ago

rauljara 14y ago

> but it's not actually valid ruby. You are correct that it is invalid for 1.8.6. The code runs just fine in 1.9, though. I take advantage of many things that don't work in 1.8.6, so I'm not particularly concerned with my method chaining breaking compatibility. I prefer the more-than-2-spaces indentation because, by the shape of the code, it is clearer to me that this is a method chain and not a change in control structure. That is also obvious by actually reading the code, though, so I'm fine putting that down to personal preference.

jordoh 14y ago
Great to know about 1.9 - just looked through the 1.9 changelog and saw it described as "Newlines allowed before ternary colon operator (:) and method call dot operator (.)", so it does seem like they are encouraging this specific formatting style. I agree that the fully indented code is much easier to visually parse - whether that outweighs the refactoring cost is certainly going to vary depending on the team (in addition to personal preference, as you mention).