From: Albert Wagner <alwagner@...>
Date: 2002-10-26T08:54:45+09:00
Subject: Re: How come true, false don't support <=> (comparison) operator?

On Friday 25 October 2002 11:44 am, Rudi Cilibrasi wrote:
> I am wondering if there is a good reason why Ruby does not by default
> support, for instance,
> true <=> false  (should be +1 or -1)
> or even
> false <=> false (should be 0)
>
Your misunderstanding arises from the words "should be..."  above.  The only 
"should be..." that is appropriate in the design of a programming language is 
consistency;  And not necessarily consistency with other programming 
languages.  Actually, for real pure OOP consistency in Ruby, true and false 
should be singleton instances of a Boolean class, in which case the operator 
<=> should not probably even be implemented. 


-- 
Best essay I've read in years:
http://www.spack.org/words/commandline.html