From: Mohammad Khan <mkhan@...>
Date: 2004-11-12T23:41:00+09:00
Subject: Re: true? & false?

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 21:54, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:28:51 +0900, Mohammad Khan <mkhan@lextranet.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 16:15, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:41:50 +0900, Mohammad Khan <mkhan@lextranet.com> > > > On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 14:50, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > > No, I didn't. Not anything convincing, at any rate. It seemed to
> > > boil down to "I don't think that a == b is sufficiently OO", which
> > > is certainly not a good reason, IMO. Why do you not like "a ==
> > > true"?
> > Personal taste! May be I am fond of wired taste !!
> > Sorry for trying to share my wired taste with you.
> 
> Perhaps it is a matter of taste -- but is this sufficient reason to
> want a change to the language?
Answer is Yes.
If you find something good to you, you will want to share it others.
After share it with others, you might learn that your idea it not as
good as it were to you.

Well, I have learned many of us did not like this #true? and #false?
idea. But I still like it.

> Again, I differentiate between your
> proposal for #true? and #false? and the #iftrue mechanisms, as your
> mechanism:



> 
>   if a.true?
> 
> doesn't really buy anything over
> 
>   if a == true
> 
> for tests of true-value. Wouldn't it be more OO to actually do:
> 
>   a.iftrue { things-to-do-if-true }.iffalse { things-to-do-if-false }
> 
> rather than simply what you've suggested?
> 
> > > Yes, we do. I don't think, however, that the Ruby world needs #true?
> > > and #false?
> > well, we need to know first before using something.
> > If you are going to use #true?, you need to know what it does.
> > I am saying this, for your reply about work with others.
> > We really don't have Object#true? in ruby. If you see #true? in my code,
> > you got to look around my code to see what it does?
> > Same way, If I work with you, you might have some new
> > opinion/idea/concept that I am not familiar with. In that case, I will
> > have to do the same.
> 
> Mmmm. I donno. I don't think that you'd find anyone else using the
> #true?/#false? mechanism you said. Most other folks would use
> unfamiliar ideas, not unfamiliar and unintuitive syntax. To me, it is
> *not* immediately obvious that #true? and #false? would test against
> == true and == false.
> 
> -austin

Sometimes new things are unfamiliar, even existing thing can be
unfamiliar. Unfamiliar doesn't mean wrong. There is no way around other
than learn to be familiar with them.
Here is an example,
In ruby there have many methods that names end with '!' like, collect!,
compact!. I was so used to that '!' means its return the object after
'affect' and without '!' return the part of the object that was
affected. I hope, you guys understood me. English is not my primary
language.
I wrote a script by using Array#delete. I and one of co-worker were
working together. When he saw my code, he said it should be #delete!.
BTW, we are coding in Ruby for about two years. when I wrote that line,
I also wrote '#delete!' ! But after ran my script first time I got to
look at my 'Programming Ruby' book.


Mohammad


-- 

[mkhan@localhost local]$ rm -Rf /bin/laden