[ruby-core:24079] Re: [Feature #1697] Object#<=>

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Eero Saynatkari<[e-mail]> wr=
ote:
> For what it is worth, when Marc-Andre brought the topic up
> on #rubinius, I argued for it to always either return one
> of -1, 0, 1 or then raise an error; and to never return nil
> or any other value. The user may simply rescue (or not) and
> differentiate between errors as needed.

Arguments can be made as to what would be the best semantic for <=3D>.
Eero would prefer some kind of NotComparable exception raised. My
personal opinion is that <=3D> was created with the perfect semantic.

This really is a different and separate discussion though; one could
also argue that  "nil =3D~ Date.new" should raise an error! Changing the
semantics for <=3D> at this point would require a really compelling
argument, since all existing Ruby code calling <=3D> or defining <=3D> has
been written with the assumption that <=3D> should return nil when
arguments can't be compared.

My proposition doesn't change the semantics of <=3D>, rather it makes it
is more respectful of it.


Marc-Andr=E9