On 29/03/12 14:28, Adam Prescott wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 13:25, rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)
> <rr.rosas / gmail.com <mailto:rr.rosas / gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Or for convenience we could allow nil to respond to each, like in
>     Groovy:
>
>     null.each {} // or eachWithIndex - doesn't throw an exception
>
>
> Why go down the road of adding this to nil instead of just relying on ||?
>
> foo = some_method || {}
> foo.each { ... }
>
> If some_method is controlled, it can be made to return foo || {} if it
> really does make sense for it to always return something that client
> code can always use as a hash.

Would you argue that this is wrong and should be removed?

1.9.3p125 :001 > nil.to_a
  => []

If not, why not?  The same argument you've just made about hashes 
applies here.

-- 
Alex