From: Christopher Dicely <cmdicely@...>
Date: 2008-08-25T10:10:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Why 'if 0' succeeds in Ruby

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Phlip <phlip2005@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I agree with you. I am also used to this. nil should never == true, and
>>> neither be == false. Every comparison with nil should just fail.
>>
>> Every *comparison* with nil (except with itself) does fail.
>>
>> "unless foo" is not a comparison of foo with false, it is exactly
>> equivalent to "if not foo".
>>
>> You seem to be recommending an SQL-style 3-value logic which is
>
> For the second time so far: His statement is jargon, and is not to be taken
> literally. His code sample showed what he meant!

It wasn't "jargon", it was simply imprecise. But that's not the issue;
his code sample showed he wanted an SQL-style three-valued logic where
NULLs (nils) propagate, which is what I addressed in the message you
responded to.. If you read beyond the first two sentences, (even
through the portion you quoted of the third) you would have realized
that. You are doing the same thing (reading one piece of a message
without paying attention to the rest and criticizing based on that in
isolation) that you seem to be upset at others doing.