From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2007-09-11T03:04:30+09:00
Subject: Re: #to_b - why isn't this one already in there?



On Sep 8, 7:54 am, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This makes more sense as #to_bool, and certainly not default
> conditional behavior. Yet, a #to_b to dictate conditions could be
> useful, allowing us to create our own variants of Nil. However, the
> only alternate to Nil I've ever found useful is Null (nil that returns
> itself on method_missing) --so I'd be pretty happy if we just had
> that. Also, I believe there's a efficiency issue with using #to_b for
> conditions, which is why it is never considered.

Sorry, I momentarily had gotten the convention backward. You are
right, #to_b is the correct method, not #to_bool. #to_bool would make
sense for effecting conditionals though, not #to_b.

T.