From: Dirk Traulsen <dirk.traulsen@...>
Date: 2007-10-18T03:27:36+09:00
Subject: Re: nil.to_i returning zero

Am 17 Oct 2007 um 21:08 hat Robert Dober geschrieben:

> On 10/17/07, Dirk Traulsen <dirk.traulsen@lypso.de> wrote:
> 
> > I think this is a reasonable proposal:
> >
> > class NilClass
> >   def +(obj)
> >     obj
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > Can you think of any case in which this poses a problem?
> 
> Hmm, let me see
> a = [42]
> b += a
> b << [43] ouch that hurts
> 
> maybe
> class NilClass
>    def + obj
>       obj.clone rescue obj
>    end
> end

You're right. That's really better.
(You didn't have to look too hard for a problem, did you? :) Sometimes 
I'm blind! )

But in earnest, I really think this would be a good thing to have in 
Ruby. 

I'm not so sure about the other cases *,- and /. There you would have 
to make a not so short list of object classes for which they must be 
handled differently.

But not for +, there it is very clear:
nothing + x is always x, independant from the nature of x.

So, as this is universally correct, it could go in Ruby itself.