From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2002-11-20T13:34:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Defining <=>

Hi,

In message "Re: Defining <=>"
    on 02/11/20, "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:

|> Return nil.

|If you return nil, then future operations like < and sort will raise the
|following error (1.6.5 Cygwin):
|
|  TypeError: no implicit conversion from nil
|
|This is a bit cryptic.  Is there any benefit to *not* just raising a TypeError
|yourself (with a more relevant message) in the definition of <=> ?

This is a formal way in 1.7.  I should modify 1.6.8 as well to handle
nil value.

							matz.