Add "Smalltalk" conditionals

[0x0dea]

I think this is a pretty nifty way to simulate having multiple blocks in Ruby, but it's really not the kind of thing you'd want to find in a production environment.

[twe4ked]

Maybe add the expected output?

[franzejr]

Yep, I was thinking about the output. Could you give us an output ?

[xzgyb]

Very interesting! 👍

[rafaelsales]

@0x0dea @franzejr

The code has an issue: we cannot call fail Math because Math is an object that does't inherit from any ruby exception class.

I would also suggest wrapping the params with parenthesis as it's recommended in ruby community style guide.

And finally, an expected output so that a reader don't have to run the file to see result.

So:

def  true.-(a, &b); a[] end
def false.-(a, &b); b[] end

puts (1 == 1).--> { :ok } { :different }
puts (4 == 2).--> { :ok } { :different }

# Result:
# ok
# different

[0x0dea]

@rafaelsales

Thank you for taking the time to make the purpose of the code a little clearer; I have updated this pull request with your version. For what it's worth, fail Math was intended to be humorous. 😆

[twe4ked]

👍

[rafaelsales]

Thanks @0x0dea !!!