From: Bill Kelly <billk@...>
Date: 2010-04-13T02:02:36+09:00
Subject: Re: attr_accessor, but for a boolean

Intransition wrote:
>>
>> This way the expectation of a ? method to return a boolean is preserved.
> 
> I used to think this too, but... I think it was Austin Ziegler who
> made the argument against using anything like "!!". In ruby it isn't
> necessary. Anything that isn't nil or false is evaluated by
> conditionals as true. I haven't once seen a case where it mattered if
> a boolean was returned rather than the underlying value.

In a DRb situation, I'd rather send 'true' across the wire than
an arbitrary object.

Also, if the boolean value is going to be stored somewhere,
I'd rather store a 'true' than reference an arbitrary object.

Also, if I'm adding a temporary debug printout #{someval.inspect}
it's nicer to see true/false in the output.


Regards,

Bill