From: Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@...>
Date: 2006-10-29T01:43:45+09:00
Subject: Re: nil.to_s != "nil"

On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 01:35:48AM +0900, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Eero Saynatkari wrote:
> 
> >>You are correct that "" != nil, but "nil" != nil also.
> >>What are you really trying to achieve? And, did you know that
> >>nil.inspect yields "nil"?
> >
> >Yes. I want consistency.
> 
> problem = nil
> 
> "but this is a #{ problem }"
> 
problem = ''

"is it really a #{ problem }?"

Of course there's _tons_ of code out there that relies on nil.to_s being
the empty string. I don't expect it will change anytime soon.