From: Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>
Date: 2006-10-07T08:47:43+09:00
Subject: Re: nil being empty

Robert Dober wrote:
> On 10/6/06, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Arrrg this st**** Enter key
>>
>> On 10/6/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi --
>> >
>> >
>> > > Ruby is a Tool not a Religion. (well at least I think so ;)
>> >
>> > Since Ruby lets you define or not define nil#empty?, not defining it
>> > is no more "religious", in the sense I think you mean it, than
>> > defining it -- and in general, religious imagery is about as related
>> > to programming as empty? is to nil :-)  It's just a discussion about
>> > best practices.
>>
>>
> Sorry for that thoughtless word, I should have used "strict" instead of
> "religious",
> David was just amused, my appologies go to those who might have been
> offended.
> And yes, maybe it was me, who took the thing too serious ;).

I don't think anyone was offended. The term "religious" is often used
in such a context. But I think it's good to remember that it's a
somewhat tongue-in-cheek usage.


Hal