From: "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...>
Date: 2002-07-26T10:16:32+09:00
Subject: Re: [PATCH] object.c ruby.h (fwd)

Hi,

> From: Dave Thomas
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:21 PM

> > > I'd expect to be able to test it with an assert(), but currently I
> > > can't without writing extra (and distracting) stuff.
> > 
> > Indeed assert() of Test::Unit::Assertions does not test 
> true/false.  
> > I think that the assert() is too generic and that can blur 
> the meaning
> > of an assertion.  Perhaps true-false-test may prevent abuse of
> > assert() in rubyunit.
> 
> Hmm - I differ here. I'd expect assert() to work the same way as 'if'
> and 'unless' do, so that
> 
>     assert(x)
> 
> would succeed and fail the same as
> 
>     raise "assertion failed" unless x

+1 to gotoken.  assert is for tester.  When someone put on
tester's hat, (s)he should assert to check true/false
explicitly, I think.

Back to the main topic about introducing Boolean class,
I don't have any idea because I seldom use TrueClass and
FalseClass with Ruby...  Does Ruby/C API user use TrueClass
/FalseClass instead of true/false(instances)?

How about introducing Boolean and aliasing TrueClass and
FalseClass to Boolean?

Regards,
// NaHi