gistfile1.rb

# just showing one of our designers how to tighten up some conditionals..

if @foo == "bar" || @foo == "baz" || @foo == "meep"
  # do something
end

# can also be written like so...
if ["bar", "baz", "meep"].include?(@foo)
  # do something
end

# basically, this says... dear ruby, if this collection of strings contains the value of @foo... do the following

# another suggestion

if %w(bar baz meep).include?(foo)
  # do something..
end

BTW, the fastest and shortest is regex match:

require "benchmark"

Benchmark.bm do |x|
     x.report { 100_000.times { puts 'match' if @foo == "bar" || @foo == "baz" || @foo == "meep" } }
     x.report { 100_000.times { puts 'match' if ["bar", "baz", "meep"].include?(@foo) } }
     x.report { 100_000.times { puts 'match' if %w(bar baz meep).include?(@foo) } }
     x.report { 100_000.times { puts 'match' if @foo =~ /bar|baz|meep/ } }
end

Wow, that's quite a difference. Thanks, Michael!

If

["bar", "baz", "meep"].include?(@foo)

feels backwards, try my in_enumerable gem and write it as

@foo.in?(["bar", "baz", "meep"])

I should add that in my testing, the regex is only the fastest if @foo is not "bar" or "baz", so one should still take the usual care in choosing the condition (and possibly ordering) that best suits the expected data.