Re: [PATCH] object.c ruby.h (fwd)

[Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com>]

GOTO Kentaro <gotoken@notwork.org> writes:

>   * On test stage, we sometimes need is_a?(Boolean) test and `assert'
>     method of RUNIT::Assert tests if the value is really true/false.
>     Meanwhile, how often do we need Boolean class in run-time?

For what it's worth, I think this is an evil side of the assert
method. Ruby says nil and false are 'false', and everything else is
true. So, if I write a method that's designed to be used as

   if my_method then ...

I'd expect to be able to test it with an assert(), but currently I
can't without writing extra (and distracting) stuff.


I think adding Boolean to Ruby would be confusing, and I'm not sure I
see the need.

At the same time, I'm wondering if it would be possible to unify nil
and false, so that they were both the same object?


Cheers


Dave