From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2004-10-31T01:34:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Another scrach on head

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:47:34 +0900, Pe�a, Botp <botp@delmonte-phil.com> wrote:
> //I still don't see a reason for #true? and #false?.

> it's a language problem. ruby caters english and sometimes the
> language does not fall immediately into ones (non-english) ears...
> Thus the op was asking if he could be more explicit+...

> consider:
> 
> a = (1 > 0)
> if a
>   block
> end

> At a first glance (assumming sans k on progg lang), one has to
> know semantics of if. And here, one realizes that block executes
> if a is true.

Mmm. I don't think changing that to if a.true? will help readability
in the least, because a.true? only applies if it is literally the
value +true+ (e.g., the instance of TrueClass). The same for
a.false?.

As far as "if a.false?" vs "if not a", this is why Ruby has
"unless", e.g., "unless a".

> so "if a" is asking like "is a an object" ??

No, "if a" asks "is 'a' a non-nil-or-false value". "unless a" asks
"is 'a' a nil-or-false value".

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca
: as of this email, I have [ 5 ] Gmail invitations