From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2005-05-19T21:00:14+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR 303: nil should accept missing methods and return nil

Klaus Stein wrote:
> Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Klaus Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> obj.meth1().meth2().nil_friendly.meth3()
>>> ==========================================================
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>> What about #nil?
>>
> nil.nil? -> true
> nil.nil_friendly.nil? -> false
> We _either_ want to use #nil_friendly _or_ test for nil, so I don't
> think this gives any problem. If I explicitly use #nil_friendly, I
> say, that I don't care about this being nil, so I will not test for
> nil.

I'm not sure I'm following you here.  If it's an expected nil (like for
example an explicitely initialized instance variable) shouldn't this then
behave similarly to nil with regard to this test?  I imagine there will be
two equally sized camps in favour for each of the two options...

Kind regards

    robert