From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2005-01-26T19:10:47+09:00
Subject: Re: attr


"Trans" <transfire@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1106709424.215471.138980@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Not exactly. But since Ruby can treat any object properly in
> > a boolean context, why waste some processing cycles on
> > conversion if not because of information hiding (i.e. prevent
> > leakage of a member value)?
>
> Well, that wasn't my reasoning when I did it that way. I just thought
> it should return boolean (or nil) as one would likely expect from a
> ?-method. But I see your point too. But perhaps this information hiding
> provides it with some merit offsetting the down side of the extra
> processing?

Probably.  There is also the aspect of resource consumption: if a client
stores a boolean flag which is really a complex object of some type GC
cannot clear it although the owner might have released it already.

> > But you didn't have it either and apparently you missed
> > it, didn't you? ;-)
>
> :-} He he. I suppose so. Well, it started with the casting and sort of
> just grew from there.

As it often does. :-)

Kind regards


    robert