From: Mohammad Khan <mkhan@...>
Date: 2004-10-30T06:24:49+09:00
Subject: Re: Another scrach on head

> > 
> > In other words
> > 
> > a = Whatever.new
> > 
> > puts "a is nil"                    if a.nil?
> > puts "a is neither nil, nor false" if a
> > puts "a is true"                   if a == true
> > puts "a is false"                  if a == false
> > puts "a is nil again!"             if a == nil
> 
> You could also say
> 
>   puts "a is true"                   if a

David,

I don't agree at this point, I would like to say

puts "a is neither nil, nor false, nor FALSE" if a
puts "a is true"                              if a == true

I consider nil, false and true as three different entity.
I don't need to show you irb screen output to illustrate it.

Thanks,
Mohammad



>   puts "a is false"                  if a.nil?
> 
> in the Boolean sense of true/false.  Ruby provides the constants TRUE
> and FALSE, for the respective objects; this might be a good way to
> write your example (and my additions):
> 
> puts "a is nil"                    if a.nil?
> puts "a is neither nil, 
>      nor false, nor FALSE"         if a
> puts "a is TRUE"                   if a == TRUE
> puts "a is true"                   if a
> puts "a is FALSE"                  if a == FALSE
> puts "a is false"                  if not a
> puts "a is nil again!"             if a == nil
> puts "a is false"                  if a.nil?
> 
> Here, I'm using 'true/false' to mean Boolean true/false, and
> TRUE/FALSE to mean the objects.  
> 
> 
> David
-- 
Mohammad Khan <mkhan@lextranet.com>
Legal Computer Solutions, Inc.