Oh, boo, booooo.

It makes sense to be consistent, Klondike. Due to the low precedence of “and” and “or” they work best as postfix jump statements/control flow like “and return” or “or raise.” While && and “and” are equivalent in this usage, it’s good to stick to ones own conventions, as there are other times it can bite you (like in assignments).

Hi David, Could you justify please why ‘&&’ and not ‘and’?

Maybe this might give you a clue: http://www.pjhyett.com/posts/201-using-or-and-in-ruby

PJ Hyett’s rundown is good. The 95% case is to want the && behavior and when it doesn’t matter it’s better to use ‘&&’ for consistency.

I get the argument for consistency, but in this case consistency isn’t worth it to me, ‘and’ and ‘or’ are so much more readable that I’ll use the && alternative only when I need to. Obviously it’s subjective, but I think it’s one of the nicer syntactic sugars in Ruby and I’m surprised to see the Rails community pass it by because someone finally pointed out a pitfall associated with it.

Klondike, you’re free to use either in your Rails project. We just prefer && and || in the Rails source because it is easier for use to understand what is going on and avoid any unintended consequences.

Inconsistent code is less readable than consistent code. Hurray &&.

Truly.

I like throwing “ands” around and dropping as many parentheses as possible when I’m feeling why-the-lucky-stiff-ish, but I don’t want that stuff in code I want to maintain.

Awesome new word: whytheluckystiffish d-:

Klondike:

Some people replace the words ‘you’, ‘are’ and ‘two’ with ‘u’, ‘r’, and ‘2’. Surely you can read && as and and || as or.