From: Aristarkh A Zagorodnikov <xm@...3d.ru>
Date: 2001-08-24T21:07:56+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:20277] Re: In Ruby 0 is true but nil is false.. or how to   shoot yourself?..


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gc@mandrakesoft.com [mailto:gc@mandrakesoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 4:05 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: [ruby-talk:20276] Re: In Ruby 0 is true but nil is
> false.. or how to shoot yourself?..
>
>
> jweirich@one.net writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > Everytime someone suggests making more things "false", I think of this
> > conversation.
>
> I didn't suggest making more things false.
>
> I said I was shot in the foot because of the following (apprently
> misunderstood) inconsistency: you may test something which would yield
> "nil" for its truth value, because "nil" is false, but you may not with
> "0" because every numbers including "0" is true.
>
> The inconsistency is because Ruby will silently assume than 0 is false.
>
> I would like that either "0" is false, or that testing for truth value for
> a number would throw an exception.
I'm against any changes ... it is a very consistent scheme, maybe not so
neat but forcing a clearer checks and overall design.

Aristarkh A Zagorodnikov, Lead Programmer, W3D Group
http://www.w3d.ru /// xm@w3d.ru /// ICQ UIN 36987938