3 ms·

yes. The first one does what it's intended to, the second plain fails :) Voice-of-Evening:~ $ irb irb(main):001:0> max=Float::INFINITY => Infinity

yes. The first one does what it's intended to, the second plain fails :) Voice-of-Evening:~ $ irb irb(main):001:0> max=Float::INFINITY => Infinity irb(main):002:0> i = 0 => 0 irb(main):003:0> i < max => true irb(main):004:0> max = nil => nil irb(main):005:0> max && i < max => nil The second version will only provide any result when a specific max value was given, while the first one will loop into infinity.

hk__2 13y ago
Yes, I messed up. I meant `!max && i < max`.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  Then the code is functionally equivalent, but the first version is much more readable. As pointed out on the parent comment, the first version does one test less, a minor performance benefit.