From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2004-11-02T06:49:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Another scrach on head

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 06:05:00 +0900, Mohammad Khan <mkhan@lextranet.com> wrote:
> 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

I disagree. I don't think it's any more or less OOP than what is below.

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

I'm not sure that this is the term you wanted -- I don't think that
it's related to functional programming and more related to structured
programming. Remember that OOP is simply building blocks on top of
structured programming to begin with. To me, doing something like:

   if options.verbose.true?

logically leads to the madness of:

   if options.volume.11? # ah, but ours goes to 11!

I can see a *little* more point to the discussion of #ifTrue and
#ifFalse (a la SmallTalk), but I'm still not seeing the ultimate point
of either one.

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