[ruby-talk:6144] Re: detect:ifNone: in Ruby

> > matz queries:
> > > If we can find better name, 
> > How about default, defaults or defaulting (I like the last).
> I'd call it "nilGives" or "nil_gives", etc.  I think default leaves too
> much open -- it depends on how your objects are made as to what their
> defualt value is.

I agree that we should not use "default" and similar names, but i can't
give a good reason why.

I'd suggest that "xyz?" be read as: "is this object [an] xyz ?".

I'd suggest that "if_xyz" be read as: "if this object is xyz, [then...]"

Therefore, "if_nil?" reads as "is this object [an] if_nil ?"...  So
wording in the form "if_xyz?" should not be used (except for the very rare
case where the above sentence makes sense!) 

In the same line as "nil_gives", I suggest:

	a .when_nil { b }

> This reminds me of my request for a short-circuit operator....  Is
> there a way the two can be unified, or is that silly?

the best I can suggest may be to add:

	a .when_false { b }  (false itself or nil itself)

so that an operator may be added later to complete the set:

     when_false is to ||
what when_nil   is to...

"|||" comes to mind, but I don't remember (or haven't seen) the original
discussion. 

matju