From: Dave Bass <davebass@...>
Date: 2008-06-19T18:16:03+09:00
Subject: Re: print(true and true) #=> the parenthesis issue

Robert Klemme wrote:
> Exactly.  That's why I offered a variant that not only has the same
> semantics as my version with "and" but also reads much better than
> your double negation.

But my double negation is completely and absolutely clear! The whole 
point of putting "unless x == false" is that it WON'T respond to nil, 
only to false.

The x variable is presumably supposed to be Boolean, i.e. true/false. If 
there's a possibility that some_work() could return nil and assign it to 
x, it's likely to be because something went wrong within some_work(). 
That can and should be picked up by a separate test such as "if x.nil?".

It's shortcuts like writing "if x" instead of "unless x == false" that 
conceal the potential for bugs. If one means "unless x == false" then 
one should write it. If on the other hand one means "unless (x == false 
|| x == nil)" then one should write that instead.

Clarity is more important than conciseness.

Dave
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.