From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2001-06-16T22:56:28+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:16536] Re: why only nil and false are regarded as false?

Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:16529] Re: why only nil and false are regarded as false?"
    on 01/06/16, Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> writes:

|> I would appreciate some explanation on why Ruby behaves like 
|> this
|
|I suspect because the alternatives in other languages were error
|prone. I know I've been bitten by loops that terminated prematurely in
|Perl.

Yes.  Plus I wanted performance in boolean tests.  Current boolean
test can be done in single bit operation in C, no method invocation,
no complex switching based on type.

|Do you have some examples where you'd like other values to be false?

Because some languages require strict boolean for conditions, I think
we can live with these two false values.  Java has only one false
value, we have two.

FYI: No, it's not Smalltalkism.  Ruby is much influenced by Lisp than
Smalltalk.  I have never been a Smalltalker, but was Lisp programmer.

							matz.