From: Florian Frank <flori@...>
Date: 2006-10-29T04:24:09+09:00
Subject: Re: nil.to_s != "nil"

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.
>   
Ruby's behavior is consistent:

 >> "a" + nil.to_s
# => "a"
 >> 1 + nil.to_i
# => 1
 >> 1.0 + nil.to_f
# => 1.0
 >> [1] + nil.to_a
# => [1]

nil.to_X always returns the neutral element for #+. Of course Matz could 
have chosen some other kind of consistency instead of this one.

-- 
Florian Frank