On 4/21/06, Logan C. [email protected] wrote:
Sorry if this is offensive, but since text doesn’t really transmit
tone of voice, are you being sarcastic?
That is why I am never sarcastic unless with people who know me, see how
lucky U R.
I wasn’t seriously suggesting
changing ruby in this manner,
that is too bad, I thought you were
it was just sort of "this seems to jive
with the other uses of #=== for the cases where the lhs side of #===
represents a set of values". +true+ conceivably represents the set of
The case idiom is so widespread look at it again
now something can meaningful be an instance of
Range, Regexp, Class, and many more
it cannot be an instance of TrueClass, FalseClass or NilClass.
Seems somehow unorthogonal, and you put it vert clearly and nicely, well
With all due respect to Matz, having a TrueClass and a FalsClass with a
single instance each (true and false for that matter) and them being
related whatsoever more than any other two objects * this point is often
overlooked * seems confusing at least.
Is there a good reason for it?
The design of a Doubleton class Boolean having true and false as values
seems so much preferable.
Seems just odd to me.
Well as a matter of fact we are OT.
The topic was why is 0 not treated as false when in such context.
I like it, especially the
!!"" == true thing is very useful.
Maybe the !!0 == true thing is less useful (BTW that is how I should
defined the #=== above ;).
So I am quite serious about that and
- I did not take any offence.
It is completely normal telling me “hey buddy you misunderstood what I
said”, and moreover I am used to it.
Deux choses sont infinies : l’univers et la bÃªtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l’univers, je n’en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.