From: Mohammad Khan <mkhan@...>
Date: 2004-11-02T06:05:00+09:00
Subject: Re: Another scrach on head

On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 15:54, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 05:47:18 +0900, Jim Weirich <jim@weirichhouse.org> wrote:
> > Ara.T.Howard@noaa.gov said:
> > > now i use
> > >
> > >    if TrueClass === options['verbose']
> > >      @verbosity = 4
> > >    else
> > >      @verbosity = Integer options['verbose']
> > >    end
> > 
> > Hmmm ... why don't you use:
> > 
> >   if options['verbose'] == true
> >     ...
> 
> See, that's why I'm not getting this. I don't see the value of:
> 
>   if options['verbose'].true?

This is more OOP
> 
> over
> 
>   if options['verbose'] == true

This is more functional

As a  OOP programmer, I will choose the first one.
Call me dumb, I don't care !
:p

> 
> The reality is that the implementations of #true? and #false? provided
> so far essentially hide that test, making this pure magic. I certainly
> don't test against true and false values often enough to warrant these
> methods, whereas I do consistently test against nil values.
> 
> -austin